What meaning of myth are you using?

Myth doesn't mean fiction or fable or legend.

Myth can mean some semblance of fact, but that the truth of the story reaches beyind questions of fact.  PErsonally, I seldom care whether any Scripture story actually happened, or happened as described by the narrator.  I deal with it.  I look at the context of the tale.  But the "truthiness" has little to do with fact.  BUt to get to that point people often need to move through a phase of challenging all the stories on their facticity (I know I did).

BOrg has a nice way of describing an evolving view of Scripture but the book is at the office so I can't summarize it here and now....

According to Webster the first definitions of myth is as follows:

1. a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

    b : parable, allegory

People tend to understand the truth a little better when it's laid out in a story or a parable. In encourages us to think for ourselves, which is, after all, one of the main themes  goals of the New Testament.

I agree with GordW above, sometimes it's the myth itself that is more important than the actual fact of whether it really happened or not.

But which one is the myth?

Jesus is the son of God

Jesus was a divine man but not the son of God

If it's number 2, why don't those churches put that on their bulletins and church signs?

It's rather secretive and deceiving not to proclaim it out front isn't it?

Contrary to what many people think, "myth" is not the opposite of "fact."

Mythology states something that is ineffable, but deeply felt, by way of analogy or metaphor.

Some of the NT, of course, is outright teaching, and is meant literally. There is nothing metaphorical about "love your neighbour as yourself," but Luther interprets the same passage as "love your next as yourself," perhaps implying that we should not only love our human neighbours but our total natural environment as ourselves.

During the two centuries after Jesus' death there were about 200 written Gospels (biographies of Jesus) as well as many more verbal ones. Even today there are still around twenty written Gospels: the four biblical Gospels, the so called Gnostic Gospels, the Gospels of the Essenes, the Coptics, the Nestorians, the Arians, and those of other Christian denominations, sects or groups. The four that were selected for inclusion in the Bible were chosen because they most suited the bias of the panel of bishops that chose them, foremost among whom Irenaeus of Lyon, who was known as an outspoken enemy of the Christian Gnostics and other "heretics."

I'm not trying to be difficult here but It's always puzzeled me why so many books are written to delve into the meaning of the bibles passages, when as some have suggested, it doesn't really matter if it happened or not. Quite frankly if no one had written what Jesus had "supposedly"said within it's pages the book would lose it's whole appeal and become a bunch of disjointed incidents that don't require a deeper meaning

If that were the case, I might as well read Aesops Fables and forget about worshipping,praying and going to church. 

Have you ever read "Gone with the Wind"?  That story gave me a lot of food for thought...the nature of good and evil is contained in that book.  What is strength and what is weakness is another theme, as is survival.  Lots of incredible ideas that can be extrapolated to so many different situations and used to understand humanity.  I can give you lists of many, many other books that challenge our ideas in the same way, in addition to being an entertaining story.  Of course, none of it is "true" in the literal sense.  I suppose all those books must be worthless.

I don't really see the Bible as being much different from these other books.  There are marvelous truths contained in the stories and the value of the Bible is in the messages and guidance there, not in whether or not the stories actually happened.  As for a question above regarding the resurrection and how it can have meaning if it isn't literal, my answer is that if we consider heaven and hell to be states of being in this life (e.g. heaven is being connected to God, ourselves, others, etc. and hell is being separate and feelings of despair and loneliness) the story provides hope that even though we've descended in to hell in our own lives, we can all be resurrected and feel love and hope again.  It provides that tiny bit of faith that might help a person start to climb back out.  

I appreciate that you're willing to struggle with it, waterfall. Regardless of where you end up in your understanding, asking the question is the most important part.

Ah, but Aesop's Fables, as much as they deal with morality (something they have in common with the Bible), do not deal with our encounters with the Divine/God/agape. Sacred text - to answer your question in another post to me - does.

And I agree with you that if the NT didn't "quote" Jesus it would not be as powerful. Just as Buddhist teachings would not be as powerful without quoting Siddartha Gatama, or Islamic teachings without quoting Muhammad.

The challenge is to read those "quotes" and not fall into the fallacy of thinking that they're a transcript of what the man Jesus (or Gatam or Muhammad) actually said, but rather the rendering of the message they brought as experienced by those who wrote their gospels.

David

A comfortable fiction is better than a challenging truth??

I agree with you to some extent actually. - Just as redefining "sin" is an effort in futility. It doesn't matter that people are just plain wrong, they're stuck on it. That's what leads people like Vosper to dump the langauage altogether. I think that Karen Armstrong's use of "mythos" is a step in the right direction as it changes the word enough to encourage people to consider it as "different."

missing the point again.

Essential agreement has nothing to do with history. It has everything to do with faith.

As to the "doubtful" historicity of the NT, there's nothing "doubtful" about it - it's not "history", although it undoubedtly contains some historical information.

As to shouting it from the rooftops - since you and others obviously understand that the mainline churches like the UCC do not take the bible literally, it seems like they've pretty much gotten the message out. What is it that you think is lacking?

Because it becomes part of a universal theme in human mythology. Jesus was not the first divine or semi-divine figure to die and resurrect in human mythology, nor was he the last. Therefore, the meaning isn't tied to the specific story, but comes from seeing its place in the broader spectrum of human culture. It also helps that, as a UU, I don't believe in Heaven and Hell or the need for salvation so I don't need it to be a literal event in order for me to receive some kind of saving grace from God. Therefore, I need to look deeper into the story to find the meaning in it.

On the broader subject of how can a story be meaningful if it isn't factual, I have preached an entire sermon on spiritual themes in fantasy stories. My core text was a passage from Charlie and The Chocolate Factory, but I also talked about comic book superheroes (the first Spiderman movie starring Tobey Maguire had just come out), Harry Potter, Star Wars, The Ring of the Nibelungs and The Lord of the Rings. Not one of those is true in a factual sense, but read/heard/watched in a mindful way, you can glean meaningful spiritual themes from them. Incidentally, in spite of all that's been put out about the spirituality of Star Wars and LOTR, I'd say Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is the best of the lot spiritually speaking.

The thing for me, WF, is that factuality can, in fact, get in the way of spirituality. That is, focussing too much on rationalizing the literal truth of an event in a story like that of Jesus can turn your focus away from the meaning of the story. In the case of Jesus, I find some Christians spend too much time trying to rationalize/justify things like the resurrection and the miracles instead of looking for the deeper meaning in the story that is there regardless of whether that event was historical or not.

YMMV, and all that, but the bottom line is, as I said in my earlier post, I do not believe that a story needs to be factual/historical to be meaningful and live that in my engagement with the scriptures and stories of all traditions.

Mendalla

Just wanted to point out the similarity between your statements and the problem that sombunall Atheists have of Church's "lying" on their church signs :3

Good on you for asking questions :3

Hi- Jae-- I agree--

I hope you are as well as I am, young man .    Indeed I do ac.... well, in one sense,

The statement is not about my belief ac. This discussion is about what it means to treat the Bible as myth. When we approach the sacred text that way, then the question of Jesus' "reality" is irrelevent.

You don't interpret the Bible that way so, as we've said before, there's no common ground from which to discuss it's meaning. That was my point in the previous post.

Be Well

David

Good points for both sides here. The ancient wisdom sometimes manifest as myths but sometimes also manifest as real events. Whose right? I would say both are right, but I'm sure that wouldn't surprise anyone.

The best myths and parables talk about our relationship with God and the Universe and how best we can walk 'the rocky road to salvation'. Read the myths of Hercules, they are full of wisdom about the nature of being human. For an abridgement of the Tibetan, the Master DK's interpretation see http://lucistrust.org/hercules/labours/index.html. Make sure you read the interpretation of the myths, they contain insight into the meaning behind the myth.

Before reading these myths of Hercules, however, you have to understand that these are truly myths and not expected to be interpreted as real events.

You should also know that Hercules is the soul and not the personality. "The orthodox horoscope", says the Tibetan, "concerns the personality life and the form is bound upon the wheel of life as it turns from right to left, (from Aries to Taurus via Pisces). But the soul is bound to the wheel as it turns from left to right, (going from Aries to Pisces, via Taurus)."

Hercules, as the soul begins his journey upon the same path but in a reversed direction now, beginning with Labour 1, the Capture of the Man-Eating Mares. He is learning how to be a soul in control by first controlling his thoughts, those wild horses that plague his mind.

*********

As real events, I don't see why many of the myths of the New Testament couldn't have actually taken place. Walking on water would be possible if one had complete control over the energy at hand, that is, the energy of matter. By applying energy to energy, anything is possible. Even the resurrection the physical body back to life could be accomplished if the Life within the form had complete mastery of the physical world. It's all about energy.

*********

Has anyone ever read a book called Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, written by Richard Bach, the author of Jonathan Livingston Seagull? It's all about this very subject of energy and mastery over the world. It's a great read.

"What if somebody came along who could teach me how my world works and how to control it? ...

What if a Siddhartha came to our time, with power over the illusions of the world because he knew the reality behind them?

And what if I could meet him in person, if he was flying a biplane, for instance, and landed in the same meadow with me?"
 

- Richard, the main character in Illusions.

How?  Right off the bat in Genesis 1, we know that isn't real.  Or can you have a "divine word of GOD" that is not actually true?

ac

the problem is that Jesu only fulfills many of the prophecies which he is said to fulfill when they are interpreted the "right" way.  ANd in many cases that is a different interpretaion than the original (such as the SErvant songs in Isaiah where the servant is not the MEssiah but the nation--until the early followers of THe Way reinterpreted them in light of the death and resurrection of JEsus).  In fact, when one reads the Messianic prophecies from a more unbiased perspective it is quite clear that Jesus did NOT fulfil the MEssianic hope.

Are you suggesting that Gord take a more biased approach to interpretation of the Messianic prophecies, in order to square the circle?

Who is to say that he is not following the Holy Spirit? Perhaps it is you that is following man's interpretation, i.e. what you've been taught to believe?

Hi witch -- The holy spirit is a witness to Jesus the Christ .GordW keeps going the other way. I will witness with BlackBelt  by the spirit that is in me that his words are true.I don't hate , Gordw or you for that matter But you will not have the spirit Jesus has sent if you don't Believe in Him. As a Christian  I believe,  Jesus was the Christ , The One sent  from God. The spirit in me CRYS OUT. My God My Savior .     airclean33

I think you might have missed the point that he was validating Gord's position, not yours.

Hmmm. Well, since I have no hesitation whatsoever in witnessing by the Spirit of Christ that dwells eternally in me that Gord's scholarship in his post in no way contradicts his faitfulness as a minister of Christ, where does that put us ac? 

I see that you've put conditions on who Jesus may bestow his Spirit upon. By what authority do you claim the right to do so?

That hubris is creeping up on you again my friend.

David

 I think that both testaments include truth and that sometimes this truth is told using various narrative means.  That doesn't eliminate the truth for me, 

Hi David-- I some times like the things you say, and the way you say them,. This Does not mean I will always agree with you or even that your right.In this case I liked what GeoFee said here.  -------------------------GeoFee Wrote---------The rabbi has a position on the scripture. In the short episode above the rabbi confronts those who adhere to scripture. He validates the scripture, with a twist. The same twist Luke notices in the reading of Isaiah in the synagogue. There the rabbi says; "Today, this scripture is being fulfilled." I take Luke and John to be in agreement on what I take to be an important point. The rabbi does not point to the scriptures as much as the scriptures point to the rabbi------------------I believe Him to say the Bible or scriptures point to Jesus, For the rabbi that was reading this was Jesus. airclean33