How Quickly Religious Myths Can Appear. Why Is This Not Possible About Jesus?

[sojourner]

And I'm sure you, like most ppl, don't understand the term myth.

The common meaning of the word myth is a complete lie, a hoax, a fabricated event. Such as "UFO sightings are a myth kept alive by people so lonely that they want to believe something exists outside our solar system."

But this not what is said about the word's true meaning.
What Is The Difference Between Myth, Legend And Fable

A legend is a mostly historical event, with some elaboration. Like ghost tours of old houses, fish stories, or the tale of the Trojan War in Illiad/Odyssey. The point is to liven up a historical event. The Bible is not legend.

A fable is a deliberately untrue story that involves forest critters usually, and is supposed to provide a moral. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Aesop's Fables, Paul Bunyan, all of these are fables.

A myth is something much more than a simple fable though, and it's not a legend either. It's something that may or may not be historical (yeah, geniuses stop trying to timeline the Bible to real history, it's not the point) but the purpose is not the history nor amoral lesson, but to explain how things work. Think of the story of Noah. It's a story of how the world is almost destroyed, yet God makes a promise (and shows it, every time you see a rainbow) that God will not try to flood the Earth again. This is a story though not just to explain about rainbows but about the environment and God's forgiveness. Or think of Moses who frees us from slavery. Ever been in a dead-end job where you get no appreciation? You hate it, but you have basically screwed up alot of jobs and are afraid to leave. Yeah that sort of job. If you understand being stuck, you understand someone promising a better life. And then there's Jesus.

Nice. But that's not quite the understanding of the word as used in biblical scholasticism. A myth is an allegorical or metaphoric story used to convey the truths and beliefs of a particular culture. "Mythic" stories in the bible are stories that do present people and/or situations as larger-than-life, such as Goliath's strength, Methuselah's longevity, or Jesus walking on the water.

 

[sojourner]

I believe the difference is that the NT writers had the Spirit of truth to assist them and keep them from writing myths.

Where's the facepalm emoji?!

 

[sojourner]

I believe your assurance is based on a personal bias instead of reality.

Reality is that much of the literature in the bible is of the mythic genre.

 

[Desert Snake]

Nice. But that's not quite the understanding of the word as used in biblical scholasticism. A myth is an allegorical or metaphoric story used to convey the truths and beliefs of a particular culture. "Mythic" stories in the bible are stories that do present people and/or situations as larger-than-life, such as Goliath's strength, Methuselah's longevity, or Jesus walking on the water.

This, even if true, does not mean that the disciples did not fully believe Jesus to be Lord, on Earth, their God.

So, in other words, your argument doesn't affect the theology.

 

[sojourner]

This, even if true, does not mean that the disciples did not fully believe Jesus to be Lord, on Earth, their God.

So, in other words, your argument doesn't affect the theology.

First of all, it is true. Second, myths are highly believable, because myths speak to our highest truths as human beings who are part of the world. Of course the disciples believed those things. It doesn't affect the theology, not because it's not true, but precisely because it is true. Theology is, itself, mythic, allegorical, metaphorical.

 

[Desert Snake]

First of all, it is true. Second, myths are highly believable, because myths speak to our highest truths as human beings who are part of the world. Of course the disciples believed those things. It doesn't affect the theology, not because it's not true, but precisely because it is true. Theology is, itself, mythic, allegorical, metaphorical.

I'm ok with that interpretation. I don't believe it's quite accurate, however as we know the basis of belief, the result is the same.

I'm not saying there isn't an argument against it, however I believe the basis, to be of the importance that takes precedence.

 

[Desert Snake]

First of all, it is true. Second, myths are highly believable, because myths speak to our highest truths as human beings who are part of the world. Of course the disciples believed those things. It doesn't affect the theology, not because it's not true, but precisely because it is true. Theology is, itself, mythic, allegorical, metaphorical.

Should note here that certain theories of science, so forth, I don't believe at all, with good reason. I would caution against not using your skepticism, all around.

 

[sojourner]

Should note here that certain theories of science, so forth, I don't believe at all, with good reason. I would caution against not using your skepticism, all around.

I don't see myself as skeptical. I am realistic about the nature of the stories, the type of literature they are, and how they are best understood as literature. That doesn't mean that the mythos isn't important to me. However, using Jesus walking on the water as an example: I don't dwell too much on the factual veracity of the event, itself, so much as on what the myth can teach us about our own divine nature, and how we relate to the world around us.

 

[ChristineM]

Fine. Here: "myth (Gr. mythos, "tale," "fable") A story that is used to explain a belief, practice, or natural phenomenon and that has a religious or spiritual significance. The story can relate many truths that may seem potentially contradictory or unrelated. Mythology is the study of myths."

Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms, Westminster John Knox Press

I use real dictionaries, not those based on confirmation bias

Does your definition contradict those i supplied? The first part doesnt, that is copied from the general lexicon as published in most recognised dictionaries.

Seems the last sentence has been added on to appease theological readers

 

[sojourner]

I use real dictionaries, not those based on confirmation bias

Oh, please! Words carry different meanings in different contexts. For example, "painter" can refer to one who paints in one context. In another, "painter" can refer to the rope that ties a boat to a quay. Since the subject is theological in nature, it only makes sense to utilize a theological definition.

The Dictionary isn't "based on confirmation bias." Your riposte, however, is.

 

[ChristineM]

Oh, please! Words carry different meanings in different contexts. For example, "painter" can refer to one who paints in one context. In another, "painter" can refer to the rope that ties a boat to a quay. Since the subject is theological in nature, it only makes sense to utilize a theological definition.

The Dictionary isn't "based on confirmation bias." Your riposte, however, is.

A painter is not a myth, there is a result to their work?

Nor is it a word with a practical use such as for example mooring boats

Myths exist outside of religion, same word, same meaning

So show me a mainstream dictionary that agrees with the last sentence of your definition.

 

[sojourner]

A painter is not a myth, there is a result to their work?

Nor is it a word with a practical use such as for example mooring boats

Myths exist outside of religion, same word, same meaning

So show me a mainstream dictionary that agrees with the last sentence of your definition.

No, a painter isn't a myth, but it's a word, and words (as in my example) carry different definitions, based on context. My argument stands. You'll have to do better than try to deflect.

It's OK to admit that "myth" carries different definitions based on context. It really is. No one's going to think less of you for admitting that. Yes, myths do exist outside religion, but we're not talking about those kinds of myths, are we? The right tool for the right job!

 

[ChristineM]

No, a painter isn't a myth, but it's a word, and words (as in my example) carry different definitions, based on context. My argument stands. You'll have to do better than try to deflect.

It's OK to admit that "myth" carries different definitions based on context. It really is. No one's going to think less of you for admitting that. Yes, myths do exist outside religion, but we're not talking about those kinds of myths, are we? The right tool for the right job!

The context of myth does not change, a myth is a myth. And you can be as sarcastic as you like, it makes no difference to the fact that painter has 2 distinct definitions

Only one general definition of myth is listed

And i see you have not bothered to provide a definition from a mainstream dictionary that agrees with you.

 

[sojourner]

The context of myth does not change, a myth is a myth. And you can be as sarcastic as you like, it makes no difference to the fact that painter has 2 distinct definitions

Only one general definition of myth is listed

And i see you have not bothered to provide a definition from a mainstream dictionary that agrees with you.

Don't need it; the Theological Dictionary does a superb job on its own. You see, the Theological Dictionary takes its cue from the literary usage of "myth," because that's the definition biblical scholars use when applying literary criticism in exegeting the texts. It is what it is. And yes, contexts change, as I showed.

 

[ChristineM]

Don't need it; the Theological Dictionary does a superb job on its own. You see, the Theological Dictionary takes its cue from the literary usage of "myth," because that's the definition biblical scholars use when applying literary criticism in exegeting the texts. It is what it is. And yes, contexts change, as I showed.

This is the sort of thing i believe causes unnecessary confusion. Massaging words to massage personal egos.

The context of the word myth does not have different meanings depending on a persons faith. But if you are happy so be it

 

[sojourner]

This is the sort of thing i believe causes unnecessary confusion. Massaging words to massage personal egos.

The context of the word myth does not have different meanings depending on a persons faith. But if you are happy so be it

I didn't say that it did. What I said was that the term "myth" is used differently in literary scholastic circles than it is in everyday usage. Different context. Since we are talking about literary criticism when we talk about the texts, the meaning of the term in that context is appropriate.

 

[1213]

Hindu myths have lasted even longer, and continue to do so.

Do people really believe or take them seriously? Has it some influence? Can you give one example?

 

[1213]

Because it was adopted by the Roman Empire in the 4th century.

If it is not true, why did they do so?

 

[ChristineM]

I didn't say that it did. What I said was that the term "myth" is used differently in literary scholastic circles than it is in everyday usage. Different context. Since we are talking about literary criticism when we talk about the texts, the meaning of the term in that context is appropriate.

So you are saying that myth is used to aid confirmation bias in religious circles (not scholastic circles, scholars i know do not add a sentence to massag their ego)

Evidence or lack of evidence show manipulating the definition s not appropriate

 

[LuisDantas]

Within 80 years of George Washington's death, a myth appeared overnight (probably at the hands of a preacher) that George had an angelic revelation about the future of the United States.

Within our lifetimes, lore and myths have appeared about Padre Pio (who died in 1968.) In one myth, he flew up into the sky and stopped American bombers during WWII.

Why is this not possible that myths were created about the life of Jesus within a generation of his death?

I get the feeling that the Bible was never meant to be taken literally. Only in recent generations that idea arose.