Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Harvey1
Why? You probably are more of an expert than them. I've read their stuff, and I've read your stuff, and I'm more impressed with you TC.
|
Oh, flattery will get you everywhere!

OK, Jesus can be historical
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Harvey1
Ha ha. Oh, TC, no one here is changing the world and I hope not suffering from any such kind of grand delusion. All you can do is just have a little fun by sharing (and debating) with a few people who have an interest in these subjects. I have no ambitions to change the world, or even the 8 or so people who browse through some of the text (and might read 40% of it).
|
I think you are overestimating the percentages! I was recalling one of the first posts I remember reading from you (I can't remember where) that said something to the effect that you considered it important to counteract these outrageous claims, and I was just having some fun with that recollection (probably a bad one anyway, my brain's getting full and I forget a lot these days!)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Harvey1
My view is that it is all myth unless there are historical criterions that provide reason to believe that certain sections of it are not myth. Where I depart from you is that I think that methodological criterions are applicable, whereas you seem to never think so. That's why I label your views as Enquirer stuff because you are guided by your gut reaction which is heavily biased against texts having mythical elements containing any kind of historicity.
|
I see, I'll see if I can differentiate it better for you. My college team is playing in the Final Four this weekend, my birthday was today, party is tomorrow, my daughter turns 18 on the 8th, so my attention is seriously diverted! Go Jayhawks!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Harvey1
It would never be necessary to establish historicity for a Christ figure. For example, I don't think historicity could ever be established for the mythical story of Adam in the garden of Eden, but that doesn't mean that Adam didn't exist. Rather, establishing historicity has little or no relevance to whether there are "true" elements to the story. The only people I know who are dedicated to establishing historicity are those who maintain inerrancy of the scriptures. Most Christians do not think that the scriptures are inerrant, so I think you are type casting.
|
That's true for most of the people who inhabit this group. I think the literalists have quite a bit of a following, though. I like myths, I don't treat them with the disdain as most people who interpret it to mean "lies or falsehoods meant to hoodwink". For example, I don't think the Myth of Ur in Plato's
Republic has anything approaching historicity, but I think it does describe a true mystical insight. But, when people try to make myths literal/historical, it actually detracts from the mystical aspect. If we see Jesus' message and resurrection as an example for personal transformation, I think its a great story that attempts to explain transcendent awakening. Historicity just seems to muddy it up, place restrictions on it it wouldn't have to endure if it didn't feel the need to defend it.