Jesus the myth?

 

The main reason for holding to the historicity of the figure of Jesus, as his activities are narrated in the Gospels, resides not primarily in historical evidence but derives instead from a modern theological necessity. Had Jesus not lived among mortals and, more importantly, had he not died and been raised from the dead, the kernel of Christian theology would lose its essence. Yet, theological need hardly counts as either sound historical method or evidence. In order to draw critical conclusions and historical rather than religious answers to our questions, a secular perspective on the subject must prevail . . . (pp. 80-81)

Emanuel Pfoh

From the book, ”Is this not the Carpenter?”

Excellent article from the archives of Neil Godfrey. Worth a read.

 

Ark

74 thoughts on “Jesus the myth?

  1. To try to turn a myth into an historical account is, as Douglas Adams perceptively says, to take apart the cat to find out what makes it a cat. Using this method, all you have left is a non-working cat. The theology from this exercise regarding the turning of the Jesus myth into an historical account is just as dead on arrival; but it is guaranteed method to create a theology devoid of its essential Jesus meaning!

    To achieve the same personal understanding offered up by the Jesus myth, there are much better myths. And they make much better movies.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I hope they find some. If they do it will be the beginning of the end for faith. Faith requires there be no evidence. If we find a shed of proof this nonsense will die off like the air diet cheeseburger eating fraud guy—and open the door to an age of reason.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Let me be clear. The true believer will still participate, but they would most likely actually live those beliefs of love and charity like they mean it—instead of waiting.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Truer words could not have been written by Emanuel Pfoh. And like Jeff above, thank you; great link to the CFI, Center for Inquiry! Those eight various links within CFI are excellent. I am particularly interested and browsing the TIES link: Teacher Institute for Evolutionary Science. 👏👍

    And Pfoh’s book ‘Is This Not the Carpenter?’ has gone immediately onto My Wish List to buy. Thanks Ark.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. It’s just as silly – if not sillier – to pretend the universe created itself from nothing. That’s the atheist’s inescapable, default position on which he/she bases his/her life. But which is the least feasible ‘myth’?

    Like

      1. Scientists tell us some kind of big bang occurred. One minute there was apparently nothing, then the next minute there was.

        Like

        1. Yes, there is a theory (hypothesis, possibility) about the “Big Bang” within the scientific community related to the beginning of the universe. However, this theory is considerably different than it being “created.”

          Further, there is no evidence to prove or disprove that before the “Big Bang” there was “nothing.” It’s simply conjecture since neither the religious nor the non-religious can confirm or deny.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. In a nitshell:

            I understand that the universe is expanding. Due to a colossal explosion. (Big Bang and all that.)

            Now, if you run a movie of an explosion backwards … so they ‘ran’ the universe backwards (for you literals, this was a mental exercise) and when it all came together it apparently disappeared like that famous bird which flew around in ever decreasing circles.
            So they deduced that the entire universe/s (all of ’em) were originally a ‘primordial atom’ of (I love this bit~!) infinite mass taking up zero volume.

            Even better, it was a timeless non-existent little nothing nowhere, wherein something changed after infinities of stasis and triggered an explosion. (Don’t ask me, I’m still grappling with the concept of ‘change’ as related to timeless.)

            I think ‘God’ sounds better … in the beginning was a Nothing, Nowhere, and God created Himself (all three of Him) from nothing, and on the face of the waters …

            Bugger. Got to stop at this point, my teeth hurt …

            ————————————————

            “Nit” is/was term for a louse egg, and/or for a person who’s a wee bit of a goofball. Imbecile. Idiot. Clod. Klutz … more affectionate than offensive.

            Liked by 3 people

          2. Sorry to bother you, Argus, but to use your analogy of reversing the ‘bomb’ means we run out of this backwards film just after the ‘explosion’ has already occurred, so to speak. In other words, there is no ‘time before’ we can work with to find stuff out because that’s as far as time allows us to go. This matters because the correct answer to questions about anything ‘before’ is “I don’t know.” And that’s okay because it’s true.

            To go any further is equivalent to making shit up, and that how we come up with this assumption of “a timeless non-existent little nothing nowhere, wherein something changed after infinities of stasis and triggered an explosion.” That is synonymous with both “I don’t know” and “I’m just making shit up.” And time (and the direction it takes), we must remember, is relative to the conditions we are now in, so…

            Making shit up about a creation event is just that. Understanding that the evidence for the the hypothesis we call the Big Bang is very well substantiated means this explanatory model is not equivalent to making shit up. Creationism is.

            Liked by 2 people

    1. @CUMBRIADAYDREAMER

      No where in the post (and it’s relation to evidence for an historical Jesus ) is there mention of the ”creation” of the universe.

      Are you simply offering us one of your rather silly drive-by comments once more?
      While I don’t mind in the least if discussion goes off on a tangent, why not first offer an informed comment on the post itself?

      Liked by 2 people

          1. Ark/CDD,

            When theist or Christians or anti-atheists/anti-science proponents want to argue their case or challenge any position that does not align (perfectly?) with their own, they often fail miserably to even use wide-consensus of acceptable understood terms to state their challenge. For example or a simile, I thoroughly understand the definition of theological, biblical, exegetical Christian/Jewish terms AND their historical context WHEN I am discussing the topics with Christians — i.e. speak their own language and hence, agreed upon, established definitions/terms. When the SAME effort is not reciprocated or worse, not even attempted, not only is it frustrating and unproductive for everyone, indirectly it weakens (undermines) the intelligence and courtesy/respect of their entire position I think. 😉

            Like

          2. What drivel, Prof Taboo. All you’re trying to say is that my challenge doesn’t meet up with your own standards of argument. At least others are attempting to address my challenge.

            Like

          3. LOL… well, it seems we both know and understand the meaning and context of “drivel.” You’ve given another perfect example of it with this response. Well done… and I agree with this second example of blathering, or drivel. 😉

            And there was no need for me to jump in and further address your initial comment. Ark, Nan, and Tildeb have done a more than enough to show everyone that you really need to try much harder in discussing Ark’s post and subsequent topics… first by at least establishing an agreed upon list of terms you initiate and presuppositions you introduce. Naturally this would also apply to initiating discussions of non-Christian topics — learn another language so to speak. 😉

            Have a nice evening.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. As the so-called myth of Jesus has far more historical basis to it than any other myth from the same period, so I don’t believe it can be dismissed quite as readily as the quoted author attempts to do. I would suggest those who happily agree with him should also balance their view by reading the works of Lee Strobel who has written several ‘The Case For…’ books after investigating the evidence by consulting scientists and historians who have made it their lives’ work to establish the truth as thoroughly as possible.

            People – if you want to gain a properly-balanced view of the Jesus-myth theories please read these books. Don’t just watch the ‘debunked’ videos because the debunkers obviously haven’t read his books.

            Like

          5. What historical basis do you refer to, CD?
            Please be specific.
            As you have read Strobel’s books you are no doubt fully conversant with his arguments.
            Just a couple of references/ citations/, quotes from these scientists and historians will suffice to move the discussion along.
            Thanks.
            Ark.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Here’s a list of the first few chapters in Strobel’s book ‘The Case for Christ’, all of which he covers at length:

            The Eyewitness Evidence – Can the biographies of Jesus by trusted? An interview with Dr Craig Blomberg
            Testing the Eyewitness Evidence – Do the biographies of Jesus stand up to scrutiny? (Dr Craig Blomberg)
            The Documentary Evidence – Were Jesus’ biographies reliably preserved for us? (Dr Bruce Metzger)
            The Corroborating Evidence – Is there credible evidence for Jesus outside His biographies? (Dr Edwin Yamauchi)
            The Scientific Evidence – Does archaeology confirm or contradict Jesus’ biographies? (Dr John McRay)
            The Rebuttal Evidence – Is the Jesus of History the same as the Jesus of faith? (Dr Gregory Boyd)

            This is only Part 1 and there are three parts to the book. I guess these chapters look at the physical evidence but they also examine the circumstantial evidence and the behaviour of the people involved – what they did wasn’t always what they would be expected to do if the Jesus story was false. No self-respecting atheist apologist should fail to read Strobel.

            Like

          7. I can answer no to the first 5 of these and the gospels are not biographies either and no secular biblical scholar will say they are, and there is no scientific evidence for this claim.
            Furthermore – the book is simply a collection of interviews with thirteen leading Evangelical apologists.
            Evangelical apologists . Hmmm …. that doesn’t sound very unbiased at all, now does it?

            There is no physical evidence to support the foundational claims of the biblical tales.

            If there were why would you need faith?
            It sounds as if you haven’t actually read the book. Have you?

            Read this ….
            https://vridar.org/?s=Lee+Strobel

            Liked by 1 person

          8. Ark, it would seem that CDD is implying that in order for us/me to know God and His “one and only Son” having a PERSONAL relationship with both — and perhaps the Holy Spirit too — he asserts everyone MUST have these other historical and modern Christian biblical scholars for the relationship/salvation to be true, valid? 🤔

            But isn’t it true (or half true?) that only God knows my heart and where my “soul” is destined? There IS NO universal standard or consensus, never has been. Curious. Must I also have Strobel, or Blaise Pascal, or even Augustine of Hippo!? Don’t all True-blue Christians™ have a very personal Jesus? Oooo, Ark… I have to do it! Que the fabulous song, Depeche Mode’s or this, performed by one of the most prolific Christians around…

            Isn’t “faith” an extremely subjective and geographically and chronologically relative to each and every person around the world? Personal? 😉

            Liked by 1 person

          9. I suspect we will be advised to read Wallace in the next comment.

            It is unfortunate, but understandable knowing what we know about being ”In the Faith” that folk such a CD assume that people such as us will not be aware of diatribes by the likes of Strobel.
            I would imagine that every deconvert has in their quest to anchor their faith has read such books.
            But, they have also read books from authors on the other side of the fence.
            Authors who tend to be a little more open and truthful and present a much broader perspective to the narrowly focused apologetic view.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. Agreed. And more objective, independent sources, scholars, and evidence are great reinforcements. The more the better. Yet still, what is also quite predictable from average mainstream apologists is that IF we do manage to get the True Believers™ out of their overused and abused Christian sources from heavily Hellenic history (versus true Second Temple Sectarian Judaism of the time in Palestine) and into the much broader, cumulative, authentic historicity of the two primary cultures (Roman and Sectarian Jew) and the relevant secondary cultures… they typically will turn to paranormal forces like Satan that fool and trick everyone on the planet EXCEPT for them, miraculously. 😉

            Like

          11. I haven’t ‘read’ the book, I’ve listened to it and The Case for Christ on Audible. Does that count? I suggest you do the same rather than cherry-picking ad hominem so-called rebuttals, as predicted. You’re now in the position of having to decide whose to believe, so be fair to yourself and do some serious reading or listening.

            Like

          12. I haven’t ‘read’ the book, I’ve listened to it and The Case for Christ on Audible. Does that count?
            Missed this comment. Yes it counts
            However, my initial comment still stands as does the recommendation regarding the link.
            Did you read the link?

            Like

          13. CDD,

            Ark asks you a very reasonable and fair question. So myself, he and others here are very curious as to your specific answers regarding Strobel’s books and those references, citations, direct quotes from credentialed scientists and historians that the (Protestant?) New Testament supposedly has overwhelming “historical basis” as you claim. In my personal opinion, there is no serious need whatsoever to read ANY expert’s/scholars take on Yeshua/Jesus the Nasoraean’s life and nature beyond 70 CE! There exists MORE than enough evidence to any one person interested to overwhelmingly indicate that what eventually became the Roman Catholic Church (via the Apostolic-Patristic Fathers) and c. 400-years later the Canonical New Testament, reflects very little to nothing of a specific Second Temple Judaic-Sectarian Rabbi/Reformer possibly named Yeshua/Jesus in 1st-century Judea and Galilee.

            That said or asked by Ark, I would offer a plethora of additional points or very problematic Christian/Biblical claims, frankly many failures too, that in the cumulative historical, contextual record found in the current 4th-century CE canonized New Testament cannot align at all with authentic historical INDEPENDENT records/evidence of that time-period. There is a serious lack of these independent, non-Christian sources! For example, there are at least 41 known Pagan and Jewish authors/historians during Jesus’ lifetime or within less-than 100 years of his life that aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author (Josephus), and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers (Pliny the Younger & Suetonius), there is no mention of a Jesus Christ. Not even the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran mention a rural Rabbi/Reformer named Yeshua/Jesus! And Qumran was within easy walking distance of Jerusalem! Nor within a century of Jesus’ life and death do any of these authors/historians make any mention of the later “12 disciples or apostles.” This problem/failure is GLARING! After more than 1,900 years Christian apologists still have YET to fix this serious crippling failure.

            Furthermore, I can list at least 23 more problems/failures of the Christian (RC or Protestant) New Testament, twenty-three. And this merely comes from or reveals itself directly from the authentic, verified historical evidence/records of the time-period WITHOUT having to consult Strobel’s biased books or any other modern Christian apologist’s biased books and personal beliefs — despite the fact that during my seminary years and 11-years of Christian missions and church ministry I read hundreds of these type books. None of them can refute the glaring failure of no independent sources to validate a man, rabbi, reformer named Jesus and the Christology that sprouted out of Hellenistic Apotheosis.

            Therefore CDD, a correction is due on your part: Personally I have done much, MUCH more than “…just watch the ‘debunked’ videos because the debunkers obviously haven’t read his books.” This gross generalized assumption of us on your part just does not apply to me, Ark, or many of Ark’s followers.

            We await your answer(s). Thanks.

            P.S. I see now that you’ve given a first answer to Ark’s initial question to you while I composed this reply. Nonetheless, my reply here can still apply.

            Like

          14. Thanks Prof, but I was hoping you might say that you’ve read Strobel’s books and you discount them because of points 1, 2, 3, etc. Strobel addresses just about all of the so-called ‘problems’ with both the old and new testaments, so there’s no point me attempting to write reams of stuff because it’s already there. You suggest Strobel’s ‘scholars’ are insufficiently qualified to answer his questions, but you need to check the information provided by them in order to discount them.

            Like

          15. CDD, I believe you’ve completely missed the overall point of my reply and content. As a courtesy of clarity, I’ll repeat for you:

            In my personal opinion, there is no serious need whatsoever to read ANY expert’s/scholars take on Yeshua/Jesus the Nasoraean’s life and nature beyond 70 CE!

            Strobel’s biased books or any other modern Christian apologist’s biased books and personal beliefs… can’t refute the glaring failure of no independent sources to validate a man, rabbi, reformer named Jesus and the Christology that sprouted out of Hellenistic Apotheosis.

            Again CDD, all one has to do who is not lazy and gullible, but honestly and equitably interested in the stories or legends of a Hellenistic 1st-century CE Jesus Christ caricature is to go straight to all the extant, cumulative sources and evidence, especially the independent or non-Christian sources, to find the truth and plausibilities, authentic truth and most plausible truths. And as I hinted in my previous reply to you, that is not possible without a good-to-excellent understanding of Second Temple Sectarian Judaism — what Nasoraeans/Nazoreans were CLEARLY involved with and about daily against Rome.

            Have a good evening.

            Like

          16. I admit Strobel’s information is secondhand – he went to the scholars he believed could provide the most accurate information, so unless you and I were to go and examine every single shred of evidence and data that exists we have to rely on people who do and have. We all read selectively because there’s no such person as an unbiased scholar. Exclude the possibility of the supernatural and you’re bound to be sceptical of anything that speaks of it, thereby forming, consolidating and entangling yourself in your own presuppositions. Open your mind to the possibility of God’s existence and you are then free to explore and enquire openly and unhindered.

            Like

          17. The problem with his research is it is completely biased as he did not interview a single biblical critic. As a former investigative journalist he should have done this.
            That he did not attempt to give the other side a fair hearing suggests a suspect motive.
            Would you trust him?

            Open your mind to the possibility of God’s existence and you are then free to explore and enquire openly and unhindered.

            Don’t be at all surprised if you get a lot of flak for this condescending comment. Many of my readers are former Christians – Nan and Prof are – and it is because they are open minded that they were prepared to examine the evidence and thus deconverted.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. Yes Ark …examined all evidence, all viewpoints contentious and supportive ONCE we got outside (escaped?) the confining Christian bubble of simply the three Synoptic (Hellenic) Gospels and the Early Church Fathers — all strictly bias to a usurped Hellenic version of distorted Messianism to a Greco-Roman Christ (Apotheosis) from purer authentic, verified Second Temple Messianic (albeit Sectarian) Judaism — were we MORE capable of taking off those indoctrination (peer-assimilated) Christological glasses/blinders and truly have more equitable examinations of ALL extant sources and evidence.

            A nice summary Ark. Bravo. 😉

            Like

          19. Historical knowledge let alone understanding of the history is inevitably a stumbling block to so many of faith.
            Christians will often tell us that it is because of religion they are no longer religious, and have become followers of Jesus, quite forgetting that it was religious people . initially Catholics, no less, who were instrumental in the compilation of the bible and its interpretation, the accompanying dogma and doctrine and all that it meant to ”Follow Jesus”.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. In answer to his question, no, I’m not intimately familiar with them but I know they were set up to try to bring about a consensus on the truth of the records and essentially compiled the Christian Bible as we know it. So why do you ask? My ‘free’ evenings are Mondays, by the way, which is why you don’t hear from me for the rest of the week.

            Like

          21. Thanks for the reply. But if you read my comment to prof, perhaps you will understand why your answer reflects what I said about the average Christian being ignorant of the history and circumstances of their faith, a faith that has been largely defined by the dogma and doctrine promulgated by the church,whether you regard yourself as religious or a follower of Jesus.
            In essence, what you believe is largely a result of what the early church defined.

            Liked by 1 person

          22. There is no doubt about the ecumenical Lego building for both scripture and early Church but the insidious inclusion of Aristotelian metaphysics and Ptolemic astronomy that we know is factually wrong in describing the world. Add the absurdity of creationism and we create a cesspool of ignorance blessed with piety to cause a never-ending and fundamental incompatibility with science and knowledge about the world. This is the pernicious ‘gift’ that continues to give and has to be fought tooth and nail to overcome. Where the pious see virtue in faith over evidence, the honest see vice in superstitious nonsense over knowledge.

            Liked by 1 person

          23. True, but now we know better, so what a wise minister preaches today is (or ought to be) under that umbrella of historical knowledge. Should the ‘average’ Christian have to know the intricacies of how the early church behaved in order to believe his or her Bible? Is its history more important than its content? And should we expect the history of the church to be perfect and unblemished? If it was, and you had nothing to point your finger at, you would instead point your finger at that perfection and claim it was manufactured.

            Like

          24. Should the ‘average’ Christian have to know the intricacies of how the early church behaved in order to believe his or her Bible?

            I would think so, yes. Especially when one considers how riddled with error the bible is across numerous disciplines.
            Aren’t you interested in the accuracy of its content and its compilation?

            Is its history more important than its content?

            Its history directly influenced its content. And what it contains is a direct reflection of the the church’s doctrinal beliefs.
            The interpolated long ending of Mark, for example has three known versions.
            The phrase ”Making it up as they go along ” comes to mind.

            And should we expect the history of the church to be perfect and unblemished?

            Oh, everyone makes mistakes, that is human nature. Not everyone willfully corrupts history for their own ends, and this is a feature of religion.
            Christianity is no exception and the bible and its accompanying dogma are perfect examples.
            You are surely not going to tell me you are unaware of the corruption of many aspects of the text?

            Like

          25. “You are surely not going to tell me you are unaware of the corruption of many aspects of the text?”

            Quote me a couple of the ‘corruptions’ you speak of. Back on Monday.

            Like

          26. Are you serious or just not bothering to read properly?Did you miss the reference to the long ending to Mark?
            The Johannine comma, the adulterous woman, the census of Quirinius,
            The Virgin birth narrative.

            How many more would you like?

            Like

          27. I offer a quick response to this. I clicked on one link at random (having played with this ingenious diagram several times a few years ago) and the error is glaringly obvious. The diagram is full of weak points which the compiler has failed to even attempt to resolve. Spot his error in this one – the difference between the resurrection of Jesus and the ones which preceded it:

            http://bibviz.com/was-jesus-the-first-to-rise-from-the-dead-sab.html

            Back later.

            Like

          28. Thanks for the answer CDD.

            My ‘free’ evenings are Mondays, by the way, which is why you don’t hear from me for the rest of the week.

            Perhaps simply giving us a courteous heads-up 4-5 days ago would’ve easily sufficed. Nevertheless, that is completely understandable.

            Your answer, or rather non-answer about the earliest Christian origins (early 1st century CE) within the full broader context of the Roman Empire (Church) and the Roman’s annihilation of Syro-Palestinian Second Temple Messianism/Judaism (Nasoraeans, Essenes, Ebionites, et al) — as opposed to Overseas Judaism/Mysticism like Saul’s/Paul’s — of which “The Way” Movement and Yeshua/Jesus (Acts 9:2, 19:9 and 23, 24:14, 22 and John 14:6) was most certainly associated with along with his followers, is a non-answer 98% of modern Christians have no clue about.

            And yet, those earliest decades and their contribution to the following 400-years of convoluted, violent destruction, scattering, and death or expulsion of anti-Roman propaganda and insurrection explains very well why the Nasoraean Rabbi/Reformer was and still is today an obscure enigma of too many things for too many misguided, misinformed followers! The faith’s and its 6 – 200 different “Christian” denominations more than adequately corroborate just how utterly WRONG the Greco-Roman, or Hellenic Christology/Apotheosis is NOT anything like the true Jewish Messiah(s) of the Second Temple period, especially in light of the origins of anti-Semitism Rome itself started.

            As Ark correctly stated, “In essence, what you believe is largely a result of what the early [Roman Catholic] church defined.” Or created and defined as a Greco-Roman religion suitable for Gentiles. Not Jesus’ reforms for his Judaism.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. It may help to understand what a myth is before assuming it only means a fiction in the form of a story. Another misunderstanding is that it’s a lie, a false belief, something that never happened. All of these common understandings that uses the term ‘myth’ miss the core of what a myth actually is: a life lesson. It is presented as a story FULL of symbols that you – as the reader or listener – assign meaning to for the story to make sense. In other words, a myth is always representative of human themes. And the signposts have to be obvious, such as the very first setting like ‘Long ago in a galaxy far, far away…’ or ‘In the deep, dark forest…’ or ‘In a land before time…’ or one perhaps you’re more familiar with, ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form….’ We can’t place the setting so we know we’re about to encounter a myth, one replete with magical or ridiculous or supernatural critters outside of what we encounter in the real world. It takes a special kind of willing blindness not to see the core of religions are almost always myths repacked as if historical. And that’s a shame because I’ll bet dollars to donuts you have never even thought about the Genesis myths through the mythological understanding and deeply human wisdom it offers every one of us. Nope, ya gotta believe cheek-less snakes actually can talk, that Adam must not have had a navel, and other idiotic beliefs to square the round peg of religion that steals and twists myths into Just So stories that must be believed or damnation will surely follow. I mean, seriously.

          To equate a scientific hypothesis with a ‘myth’ similar to, say, a talking snake demonstrates a rather large misunderstanding of what a myth actually is. And what a loss that is to the person who allows religion to take away such a rich source of human wisdom and replace it with truly asinine beliefs in agencies of Oogity Boogity! and the divine power of POOF!ism.

          Liked by 6 people

          1. nicely propounded, Tildeb; the same way that “The Tortoise and the Hare” puts language and motivation in the actions of animals, or “3 Little Pigs” or even “Cinderella” which in its earliest form was a horrific children’s cautionary tale against greed and pride. If Bible goers were content to leave the Bible as it is writ, and take it at face value AS A book of cautionary tales, I think they–and we–would all be better off.

            Because that’s what most of it is. Tales of valor, of bravery, greed, pride. Face value. Put bows on it, and the whole thing falls apart.

            Liked by 2 people

      1. Hah! Yer wanna Creation? I’ve just given you one … but where it goes in your busy comments columns is God’s choice—and She may put it somewhere completely out of context. (They do that to me a lot, God does.)

        Like

  4. Who says the universe came from nothing?

    More likely some fields or potentialities have always existed and that there has never been absolute nothingness and cannot be such a state. But it has nothing to do with a otherworldly creator because then you get into “where did that come from?” And then where did that come from ad infinitum.

    Liked by 5 people

  5. The battle is over who gets to control the narratives: the apologists, or impartial historians who try to bring commonsense questions to the table when presented with what read clearly as myths.

    Ceding power to a secular perspective is bound to put apologists’ noses out of joint. Tough s**t.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. I was just watching the Joseph Campbell series on Netflix. All of the mythology carry a certain theme. The hero, the initiation, the return triumphant, etc. Even in aboriginal lore it’s always the same. The need for this human construct is still a bit of a wonder, but the myths are all thematically tied. No wonder all the stories are so similar.
    I like the Greeks. At least they sound hate their gods and they were so capricious nobody minded. In fact they expected it. But abrahamic faith goes through the hairsplitting ritual to prove he’s this perfect and great thing, but Dystheism is more on point. But no less a myth.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. The Greek myths are far more entertaining than the Bible myths, with the added bonus that no-one confuses the Greek myths with reality. And, as Tildeb pointed out earlier, the non-Abrahamic stories generally made for better movies. There’s no way, for instance, to make those Gospel accounts work dramatically — they always come off as kitschy; simply ludicrous.

    Scorsese stumbled when he did “Last Temptation of Christ”; and of the mad Jew-hating Catholic’s sadomasochistic gorefest “The Passion of the Christ” — the less said,
    the better.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. One thing that all humans do is fantasise about unrealistic people and events from the start of life. We as children delighted in fantasy and make believe, it is more fun than reality was, we can scare the hell out of each other in the dark with creepy stories of the supernatural, and we all loved the excitement.

    Many of us as adults now find the unknown depths of science to be an exciting and an interesting speculative conversation, however who would of thought that in the 21st century that grown adult men and women would still continue to be unable to separate the differences between what are superstitious bronze age beliefs equivalent to childhood fantasies against what is reality and indisputable scientific facts ?

    Liked by 3 people

  9. I read your link and quickly scanned the one embedded in that. So who is telling the truth and how do you know?

    Like

      1. Thanks but no apology needed. I’ve seen Strobel’s response to this – or something similar – somewhere so I’ll check it again tomorrow at some point.

        Like

      2. That’s an excellent source/link Ark. Had forgotten that one… likely because with every year or 3-5 years there compiles more ontological, empirical, archaeological, paleological, epigraphical/palaeographical, etc, etc, evidence and sources further refuting the veracity of the canonical New Testament and the stagnate claims of Christianity… rather Christology. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Dammit … I have a limited attention span.
    I also have problems sticking my comments in where appropriate.
    Hence I often address them, but by the time they get there they’re no longer relevant.

    Furthermore: dammit!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Geezzz Argus! Do live on some tiny remote island nation or something where NO ONE knows what time-zone (or dimension of the time-space continuum) you might hail from!? Is that it? Might your span of attention cross several/many time-zones? 😉 😛

      Like

        1. That’s why if I visit and tour that island nation of Kiwis I will be incognito! No could recognize or suspect a fun, twisted, perverted Heathen in a place like that, right? 😉

          Like

  11. PROF:

    Sadly, time zone is irrelevant.

    I mean with all the traffic Ark gets, often I reply but by the time it gets added to the list it’s waaaaay down the page and folks might ponder the sanity of putting something like that in (’twas ever thus, sigh …)

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Btw Argus, I am so pleased that Jacinda Ardern is heading serious changes and stoppage on internet social-media platforms of broadcasting mass-shootings live with French President Macron! Well done on ya Kiwis. 👏

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s