Mythology with real places & people

I am saying that.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

It is as much mythology as the greek and roman myths or the egyptian myths or any other myths from the bronze age.The laws , poems, songs, prayers etc. are all based upon the myths and legends. Without the myths and legends you don't have all of the rest.Saying I am wrong is pretty strong statement. You can believe what you want, but to me it is all myth and legend.Edited by Theodoric, : spelling

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

What other conclusion is logical? It is full of myths and legends. Anything that speaks of the supernatural or of magic is myth and legend. Show any of the stories have a non-biblical, historical source to back them up and I might reconsider. Til then they are myth and legend.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Present the historical facts.You do realize that though some of the bible stories may have some basis in historical events, adding the supernatural makes them mythology just like other myths of that time period.Condescension does not become you and has no place in this debate. Do not give me that christianist attitude, that I am just some silly unbeliever that should be laughed at.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I have not said anything about rejecting anything. All I have stated is the bible is a book of mythology and legend. By virtue of definitions the moment the supernatural enters, the stories become mythology and legend.I agree that there are parts of the bible based on actual historical events. "Gone with the Wind" has historical events in it, is it real? The Iliad and the Odyssey seem to be based on historical events, do you not perceive them as myth and legend?You can intersperse any number of historical facts and events into a work of fiction, but that does not make the story true. There is no other non-biblical verification of the supernatural elements of the bible. As there are no external verifications of any other books of legend and mythology. Once there is you can represent the case that the bible is not a book of legend and mythology.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Well explain how the the laws , poems, songs, prayers etc. have any meaning without the myth and legend that accompanies them. How is it an unsupported assertion? Show an external source that gives them relevance without their mythological basis. Do you have an external source for this list of laws? A prayer to a supernatural entity may not be directly itself a myth but it is a prayer to a mythological being. The songs, prayers, whatever are part of the mythology that is the bible.Again I have to ask what is the whole rudeness and condescension that comes from christianists whenever anyone makes a comment about their book? Have I been rude? There is no reason to be an a-hole. Present your evidence to try to convince of your argument. If you can't do that politely, then please don't respond.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

According to some the bible is actually folklore. Myth is part of folklore.

quote:

---

"myth" is not a synonym for error or fallacy but is rather a sacred narrative explaining how the world and mankind came to be in their present form. Myth is one genre out of several hundred genres of folklore

---

Holy Writ as Oral Lit
Alan Dundes
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers
1999
Page 2You might want to read this book. Well written by a folklore scholar. Most christianists won't bother to read books like this because of how the books question their preconceived mindset and world view.Oh and if you have any doubts about the credentials of the author of the above book here is the wiki entry. Alan Dundes

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Since CS seems to be so hung up on grammar and semantics, and his desire to split hairs, I guess I should have said it this way.The bible is BASED on mythology and legend.One can come back and say that Paul's letters are not legendary or mythological, but their whole premise is based upon the legend and mythology of the OT and Jesus. That is how I get to my statement that the bible is legend and myth.I also think it is important people understand the difference between a legend and a myth.

quote:

---

A myth is a sacred story from the past. It may explain the origin of the universe and of life, or it may express its culture's moral values in human terms. Myths concern the powers who control the human world and the relationship between those powers and human beings. Although myths are religious in their origin and function, they may also be the earliest form of history, science, or philosophy...

​

A folktale is a story that, in its plot, is pure fiction and that has no particular location in either time or space. However, despite its elements of fantasy, a folktale is actually a symbolic way of presenting the different means by which human beings cope with the world in which they live. Folktales concern people -- either royalty or common folk -- or animals who speak and act like people...

​

A legend is a story from the past about a subject that was, or is believed to have been, historical. Legends concern people, places, and events. Usually, the subject is a saint, a king, a hero, a famous person, or a war. A legend is always associated with a particular place and a particular time in history.

---

Source

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I think it is highly likely Jesus was a totally fictional character. There is no contemporary extra biblical evidence to the contrary. I also believe King Arthur and Robin Hood are fictional characters.Peg doesn't seem to understand the concept of historical evidence if she make the Alexander the Great claim.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This has been hashed over in other threads. Threads you participated in. Do you really want to go there again? Show me one contemporary account of Jesus Christ. ONE. Within 200 years of the time period is not contemporary.Show one account questioning whether Pontius Pilate was a real historical figure.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I have. Extensively. No historian of the time mentions jesus at all.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Not historians, not contemporary to jesus and we have no ides who the authors were or if there were multiple authors. But we can be assured they were not written b an actual apostles.The rest of your post is just poor apologetics. You still have never shown any extra-biblical contemporary evidence for the existence of jesus christ.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Both are highly suspect. The Testimonium Flavianum cannot be taken as legitimate. There are too many inconsistencies. Also, it is not a contemporary account.Tacitus was also not contemporary.This has been all hashed over here.This post from 2005 sums it up.

quote:

---

TACITUS (c.112CE)

​

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millenium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)

​

Thus, even if the Tacitus passage is not a later interpolation,
it is not evidence of a historical Jesus based on earlier Roman records,
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)

---

quote:

---

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

​

The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to acknowledge anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)

​

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)

​

But,
its COULD be actual evidence for Jesus. late, corrupt, but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.

​

Such is the weakness of the evidence that this suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of Nazareth.

---

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Show evidence they were written by actual apostles. You do realize that most christian theologins don't believe they were also.The reason they have something to do with the historicity is that the only evidence you have, the only, cannot be given a provenance. No one knows when they were written. They can be fairly accurately dayed post 70 CE, but not much better than that. They are also not contemporary to the time period your jesus was supposed to have existed.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Who says this?Have you heard of Paul Bunyan, Casey at the Bat, Rosie the Riveter?All legendary characters.Your argument is no argument. ANd certainly no proof. I disagree with the good professor. It is highly doubted outside apologist circles.Please provide link to his statement addressing this issue. I would like to read it.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts