Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian S...

Originally posted by kirksey957
Aren't you using the word "myth" as something that is a falsehood? You may want to expand your idea of "myths" as stories that are told to convey powerful and universal truths. That opens up all kinds of possibilities.

Well that's the word that is used around here as opposed to the authenticity of the bible.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Well that's the word that is used around here as opposed to the authenticity of the bible.

A myth may have a very real and authentic truth in it.

Originally posted by kirksey957
A myth may have a very real and authentic truth in it.

But it can ultimately be laughed off as unreal.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
But it can ultimately be laughed off as unreal.

Biblical literalism, for lack of a better phrase, can ultimately be laughed off as unreal too. I don’t laugh, but I think it’s largely unreal (not that I think there is no history in the Bible).

I think that’s because moderns have lost a sense of myth, so that we no longer understand what the writers of myths were about. We no longer understand meaningful story, except as entertainment. The sole choice often seems to be to write them off as superstitions or fairy-tales, or opt for a literalism that can be regarded as another form of superstition (think of someone insisting that the gods in Homer’s Iliad are real; Christianity seems to have been regarded by the Romans as either superstition or atheism—“only our gods are real” ).

See my post in reply to Hal on page 4 of the “God murdered…” thread. (My footnote at the bottom was due to the fact that the two groups that seem to nail me the hardest whenever I do a midrashic exegesis of a text are nontheists and theists who both want to insist that any kind of non-literalistic reading is somehow an apologetic of some kind—that is, except for those folks who just nail me because I need to be nailed! 🙂 )

Originally posted by vistesd
Biblical literalism, for lack of a better phrase, can ultimately be laughed off as unreal too. I don’t laugh, but I think it’s largely unreal (not that I think there is no history in the Bible).

I think that’s because moderns have lost a sense of myth, so that we no longer understand what the writers of myths were about. We no longer understand meaning ...[text shortened]... of some kind—that is, except for those folks who just nail me because I need to be nailed! 🙂 )

I like your stuff; the midrash interpretation of the Adam and Eve story you posted was one of the best things posted on this forum by anybody besides me. I forgive you for not knowing anything about the Cathars.😛

Originally posted by no1marauder
I like your stuff; the midrash interpretation of the Adam and Eve story you posted was one of the best things posted on this forum by anybody besides me. I forgive you for not knowing anything about the Cathars.😛

Thank you, sir. I'll have to try to top that one! I confess: I still don't know anything about the Cathars--but I accept your apology anyway.😳😕

EDIT: I saved your piece about God who is something of a gambler; that was damned fine.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Thank you, sir. I'll have to try to top that one! I confess: I still don't know anything about the Cathars--but I accept your apology anyway.😳😕

Messed up here. Sorry.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
If you claim to be "objective" and accuse others of not having that attribute, than why do you include these derogatory expressions in your posts, such as "your syncretic saviour" ?

I'm not certain I've ever claimed to be objective, unlike many forum participants wishing to travel some pretentious and imaginary "high road". I'm not above using pejorative terms to describe what I consider to be sheer folly, although it seems you find reason to feel defensive in this case.

Originally posted by David C
I'm not certain I've ever claimed to be objective, unlike many forum participants wishing to travel some pretentious and imaginary "high road". I'm not above using pejorative terms to describe what I consider to be sheer folly, although it seems you find reason to feel defensive in this case.

Another Smart Alec .... stand in line please ....