The limits of mythical truth

[Thersites]

A large number of Christians hold to an interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis as being "mythically" true- that is, not accounts of historical fact, but stories with an essential message that is nonetheless true. For example, the creation accounts make the point that God is the master of creation, and the question of whether the world was in fact created in 6 days is not relevant to that deeper reality.

When does this sort of mythical interpretation fail? Does Jesus' life make sense if Exodus is a myth? The history of the Davidic kingdom? Does the unique moral content of Christianity survive a mythical interpretation of the Gospels?

[Cow Poke]

I start with the resurrection of Christ and work backwards.

[Thersites]

I start with the resurrection of Christ and work backwards.

1 Cor 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

Paul argues that Christ's resurrection is prerequisite for our own eternal salvation, but without Heaven, is it still true that we should love our neighbor as ourselves?

I suppose this means that part of this thread could also be posed as a question about the upper limits of natural law, but I'm not quite so comfortable speaking that language.

[rogue06]

[Kane]

I start with the resurrection of Christ and work backwards.

Does it not make more sense to start with the premise 'God exists' and then work forward?

[Cow Poke]

Does it not make more sense to start with the premise 'God exists' and then work forward?

Why? If Christ be not risen from the dead, all else is pointless.
And, Christ does not exist without God, right?

[Kane]

Why? If Christ be not risen from the dead, all else is pointless.

Well, for me, I can reason to a deistic conception of God. After that though, I have a long way to go to get to a personal, transcendent deity who is invested in the very minutiae of my life. It seems to me that the number of steps between the deistic God and the God of Christianity is almost as infinite as God's longevity. The point is, to get to the place where I'd be questioning the veracity of Jesus's historical resurrection, I'd have already been long in the grave myself. It's non-falsifiable and therefore, in my opinion, not even a premise at all, let alone a place to work backwards from.

And, Christ does not exist without God, right?

Depends on your thinking, I suppose. Isn't Christ co-equally God in the Christian tradition? That's what I understood for the 20 years I was a Christian.

[Thersites]

Why? If Christ be not risen from the dead, all else is pointless.

Why is that?

[Thersites]

Well, for me, I can reason to a deistic conception of God. After that though, I have a long way to go to get to a personal, transcendent deity who is invested in the very minutiae of my life. It seems to me that the number of steps between the deistic God and the God of Christianity is almost as infinite as God's longevity. The point is, to get to the place where I'd be questioning the veracity of Jesus's historical resurrection, I'd have already been long in the grave myself. It's non-falsifiable and therefore, in my opinion, not even a premise at all, let alone a place to work backwards from.

As I said, the question I raise is very much connected with the idea of natural law- a morality which we can understand without it depending on some divine revelation.

That having been said, can we arrive at a morality based on universal love without relying on divine revelation? If so, does Christianity actually contribute anything to ethics that we could not otherwise know?

[Cow Poke]

Why is that?

Scripture Verse:

1 Cor 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

The resurrection is the gatepost upon which the door to Heaven swings.

[Thersites]

Scripture Verse:

1 Cor 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

The resurrection is the gatepost upon which the door to Heaven swings.

Yeah, you may or may not have noticed that I already cited that verse, but is the promise of Heaven necessary?

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, you may or may not have noticed that I already cited that verse, but is the promise of Heaven necessary?

It's the icing on the cake.

[shunyadragon]

A large number of Christians hold to an interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis as being "mythically" true- that is, not accounts of historical fact, but stories with an essential message that is nonetheless true. For example, the creation accounts make the point that God is the master of creation, and the question of whether the world was in fact created in 6 days is not relevant to that deeper reality.

When does this sort of mythical interpretation fail? Does Jesus' life make sense if Exodus is a myth? The history of the Davidic kingdom? Does the unique moral content of Christianity survive a mythical interpretation of the Gospels?

First, the evidence indicate that morals and ethics are universal with humanity in history, and not unique to Christianity.

This line of thinking is the Catch-22 links in the Judeo-Christian scripture that is linked together in the Bible. It is what separates The Liberal Christian denominations from the Conservative Evnagelicals. This division has grown strongly over the past 50 years. I believe the contradictions with science and the modern knowledge of the world will grow until the literal understanding of Benesis is no longer remotely feasible. It is not remotely feasible today, but people can be blindly stubborn.

[Thersites]

First, the evidence indicate that morals and ethics are universal with humanity in history, and not unique to Christianity.

That's a big part of my reason for this thread. If it is possible to arrive at perfect Christian ethics without the need for the Sermon on the Mount or any kind of direct revelation, what would this imply about Christianity?

This line of thinking is the Catch-22 links in the Judeo-Christian scripture that is linked together in the Bible. It is what separates The Liberal Christian denominations from the Conservative Evnagelicals. This division has grown strongly over the past 50 years. I believe the contradictions with science and the modern knowledge of the world will grow until the literal understanding of Benesis is no longer remotely feasible. It is not remotely feasible today, but people can be blindly stubborn.

How liberal can you get with non-literal interpretations before the Bible becomes nothing more than Aesop's Fables?

[Thersites]

It's the icing on the cake.

So Jesus' Resurrection was just to put the icing on the cake?