(January 22, 2014 at 4:28 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: [quote='Vicki Q' pid='588333' dateline='1390343598']Quote:I know you get a lot of fundies here, and you probably get used to debate based on different assumptions. So can I make this clear: No-one died. It's a story. People die in stories all the time. No-one gets upset.
Do you believe that Jesus died on the cross for the salvation of mankind?
No one died. It's a story.
I'm curious to know the methodology of your cherry-picking.
Something's up with the original coding, but I think I get the question.
It's all about genre. If I switch on the TV, and there's a report about aliens invading, how do I know what to do?
If I'm watching BBC News 24, and there's a universal atmosphere of panic (upset newsreaders, footage of world leaders, news staff expressing their hitherto unacted on mutual attraction in the background) then it's time to say goodbye to family and friends.
If it's part of a scheduled science fiction series on Gold, then it's probably time for a nice cup of tea.
With biblical genre, you do the history. You look at criteria, potential sources of the story, evidence...Then you work on a hypothesis that best fits the data.
In the case of Elisha and the bears, I don't see hard historical evidence. The message of the story (“Don't XXXX with God”) is a running theme, and it seems to me to fulfil the same sort of parabolic function as, say, the Good Samaritan.
The Early Church would never have asked the question “Is it true?” of a story. For them, the question was, “What is the truth within this story?”.
The historical evidence for Jesus dying on the cross is utterly overwhelming, by contrast. Criteria of embarrassment, multiple attestation, discontinuity with Judaism...given there's nothing remotely miraculous about a leader of a Jewish sect getting crucified, I can see no good historical argument against.