Mythology with real places & people

To the point of this topic: A myth can be set in a real ancient place and can feature real people. Do you agree?It strikes me that those that accept the Bible as true tend to think that those reject the Bible must do so because they think every thing in it is lies - and they think that by showing that some places or people mentioned really did exist, that demonstrates the reliability of the books and this therefore demonstrates that Yahweh is the God of History.This doesn't work for the Iliad, so why should it work for another work?

Hmm, it depends what you mean.Stressing the point of the thread again, the Iliad is 'based on fact' in the sense that certain places and possibly certain people have some real world correspondence. That doesn't mean that all of the work is factual any more than the Da Vinci code is factual because it references real people and real places. No, but just because it makes one claim that is broadly true, it doesn't mean that other claims are necessarily reliable, right? I think the answer is: It might do, yes.

Hi Peg.Even if (and its a big if - in fact its not even an if, it's simply not true), all of the historical claims that occur in all of the books of the Bible were shown to have been true, that does not mean the attributed causes behind those events (Yahweh) is in fact the cause behind those events. You surely agree that this is true, yes?I mean, imagine if all the historical claims of the Iliad were shown to be true, the great siege, Meneleus, Helene and all of that, it doesn't mean that Achilles was held by his heel and dipped in the river Styx or any other myths surrounding Achilles heroic immortality and unusual vulnerability. Nor does it mean that a Greek sorcereress turned sailors into pigs.Right?

---

abe: I fail to see how pointing out that the Bible stories have thematic differences from the Greek stories means that it is the Bible stories that have been shown to have the accurate supernatural claims. You'll have to explain that logic to me.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

As I said - I'm talking about the events, not the causes. And only the historical ones. I'm talking about major battles, cities, governments, the rise and fall of nations, leaders, generals.For example: Let us say the Israelites did suffer a major plague and evidence that 14,700 died from was found - that doesn't mean that the plague was caused by a pissed off Yahweh, right?And just because the walls of Jericho fell it doesn't necessarily mean that it was caused by Yahweh. Even if we grant that it was a supernatural cause, we still cannot conclude it was Yahweh. All we know is that some people have attributed it to Yahweh. It could have been Zeus, Wotan, Osiris, Jupiter, a powerful poltergeist or psychokinetic.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

So you agree thata) reporting an historical event accurately does not mean being right about the causes of that event.b) even if the conclusion was that a supernatural cause was in play was accurate, that doesn't mean that the supernatural agent credited with the event actually had anything to do with it.?It seems to me, that by agreeing to this you have undermined your own point.The rest of your post about how nobody follows people with psychic powers, or Roman, Greek, Egyptian or Germanic-Norse deities is as demonstrably false as it is irrelevant.

Naturally - there are plenty of other reasons to think the accounts are wrong. Unless we frame things to be deliberately unfalsifiable, but that simply renders it pointless to debate about. But you can equivocally say it since myth doesn't necessarily mean false(though it can do):

quote:

---

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society

---

The Bible fits that definition of myth perfectly.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Are you using Paul's words as evidence about Jesus' nature while simultaneously dismissing him? And are you citing Unitarians as evidence that Trinitarianism is a main point of Christianity? Trinitarianism is certainly predominant, but not all encompassing. There are still plenty of groups that would be commonly called "Christian" but either reject the Trinity or don't consider worrying about it particularly vital, as well as the historical groups such as the Cathars and Marcionites, there are also the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

No, you didn't. And you may well be basically wrong if that is what you meant. No, it is that Jesus was the much anticipated Messiah. Someone from the line of David come to lead Israel to glory. That's the big point. Everything else is detail.What do you mean by "big point"? That it is commonly believed? That it is integral to being a Christian? And how is it relevant?