Jesus Fables | Jesus Myth-Telling with Bible Scholar Richard C. Miller

[@MythVisionPodcast]

Correction from Dr. Miller: The story given regarding Alexander toward the beginning of the interview was instead told of the Indo-Greek King Menander meeting the Buddhist monk.

[@Ken_Scaletta]

DR. Miller may have been thinking of a different story told about Alexander and Diogenes of Sinope. Supposedly Alexander went to see Diogenes at his tub in Athens.. In the story Diogenes asks Alexander what his plans are and Alexander says, "to conquer Greece." "After that what?" "To conquer Persia." "Then what?" "To conquer the world." Then Diogenes asks Alexander what he will do after he conquers the world and Alexander says, "I guess I'll just sit around and take it easy." Then Diogenes says, "Why don't you skip all that other stuff and just sit around and take it now?" Alexander tells Diogenes to name any gift or favor and Diogenes famously said, "Just step aside, you're blocking my sun." I think it's from Plutarch's ""Life of Alexander." Probably apocryphal but a cool story

[@thomaspayne7617]

Michael Shermer talked about this, a game is classified as a fuzzy category. You have many overlapping elements of other games but not all of them.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@thomaspayne7617 I think the defining feature of a game is the presence of some objective to achieve. I have been unable to find any examples of something no objectives to achieve that has been widely regarded "a game," as opposed to something else, like a sandbox or activity.

[@Jd-808]

@@Ken_Scaletta Obviously total fan fiction, just like everything else about Diogenes, who might as well not have existed. (/s)

[@thomaspayne7617]

@@angelmendez-rivera351 work has objectives. Sex has an objective. Many things that are not games have objectives.

[@Cognitoman]

Dude it’s crazy how much you have grown compared to like 5-7 years ago man... did a 180 with your life... truly fucken amazing man.

[@VioletWonders]

Dr. Miller is my favorite guest you've ever had!! Amazing stuff!!

[@atheologica]

I much enjoyed the early discussion of typology, akin to Max Weber's Ideal Type. When the climax to the Christian narrative about Christ's resurrection and exaltation to heaven hits so many plot points on the overarching tradition of Greco-Roman apotheosis, it becomes nigh impossible to divorce the story from its obvious cultural and literary bedrock. The apologists are indeed kicking against the pricks on this one. Asclepius was struck dead by Zeus, but raised up to immortal godhood, appearing over and over again to those seeking his aid. Romulus ascended to divine life, appearing to Proculus Julius to deliver a Great Commission for Rome. Heracles died in flames on the funerary pyre, but was made an immortal god on Mount Olympus, appearing to his mother Alcmene to console her woes. The death of Julius Caesar was accompanied by darkened skies, earthquakes, and the silent dead rising from their tombs, as in Matthew's Gospel, though he later ascended to heaven. His son, Augustus, also rose to heaven, as witnessed by a man of praetorian rank. We are all a product of our cultural and literary environment, and early Christians were no different. The Christian savior, whose death is accompanied by prodigious wonders, who's taken up to the heavenly realm--imbued with new divine power, authority, and immortality--and who appears to followers to ensure them of his continued life and message, is an echo of the mythic and legendary phenomena of the time. Dr. Richard Miller details and expresses this with utter cogency and eloquence. I can't thank you enough, Derek, for bringing his work to light!

[@LofiNarcolepsy]

Currently reading his book. Thoroughly enjoying it.

[@robdavinroy1761]

I will give an example today. I work directly with young Chinese engineers on a project. Many of them are addicted to the series” Friends”. Most have watched it multiple times. I ask them why they like it so much. They tell me they can’t get enough of the dialogue and humor. It’s everything Western to them and they crave it. And it shows in their personalities and mannerisms. They adopted western language and culture. It’s the same way with the gospel writers and the Hellenism influence. So obvious.

[@GrinchDec23]

Friends is dead these days lol, always behind the curve i guess

[@robdavinroy1761]

@@GrinchDec23 Dead to our culture but to them Life.

[@ahsanrubel2869]

Imitating Geeek is what Hellenism is! And it’s a deliberate effort to become Greek . Rightly said!

[@Straitjacket-Fits]

Usurp the Greek ID just like "they" did in Egypt

[@MythVisionPodcast]

Grab his book Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity to find out so much more 👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf

[@davekearney1944]

I got a very strange "how to flirt with women" ad along with my video. How enlightening!!!

[@mr.zafner8295]

You have improved enormously in the quality of your erudition. Congratulations and I look forward to your future work

[@johnfox9169]

Excellent scholarship as usual here. Brains!!

[@decades5643]

Did you just watch The Return of the Living Dead or something?

[@randysmith7495]

Agree! His knowledge, enthusiasm and presentation style are, to me, excellent. Randall Smith, Sc.D., M.D.

[@KeanuReevesIsMyJesus]

100K subs my dude! Congratulations on this milestone!

[@satie321]

Excellent stuff Derek. Your channel should have way more subscribers.! Such high quality content.

[@mythosboy]

Duck denial is real, apparently. Meanwhile, the rest of us have no problem finding literary models, where they are completely, bloody obvious. Also, I think the phrase Dr. Miller is looking for when describing the deep seating inadequacy modern day apologists apparently feel well interpreting their favorite texts is "Enlightenment Envy". They miss the days when they could set the debate under their own terms. And those days are long gone.

[@librulcunspirisy]

👍

[@geraldmeehan8942]

Thank you for a wonderful discussion Derek & Dr Richard Miller

[@danbreeden8738]

Iv read his book its excellent In its scholarship

[@Ken_Scaletta]

"Religion" like "game" is famously impossible to define. I can remember the first day of an intro class to Eastern Religion, the whole first hour was spent on trying to agree on a definition of "religion." Whenever you think you've nailed it, something slips through. There are religions which are non-theistic and have no supernatural beliefs.

[@pheresy1367]

Oh yeah... I really liked the discussion with your dad, Richard Miller! I'm always learning from him. Being a (kinda) Buddhist myself, I really resonated with that story about the Buddhist monk dishing "wisdom bombs" onto Alexander the Great... :-)

[@-Dekeita-]

There's an actual force here, and it is with you Derek

[@per-axeljonsson2717]

Very Good! Thank. 🌄the light getting brighter!

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Anyone know how to say "the LORD" in the Bronze Age? BAAL. 2 Samuel 5: 20 20 So David went to Baal Perazim and defeated the Philistines there. He said, “Yahweh has overwhelmed my enemies in front of me like an overwhelming flood.” That is why that place is called Baal Perazim [The LORD Overwhelms].

[@Bbarfo]

I ordered his book today. I have so many on the runway that are just waiting to be read.

[@jasonb4321]

@Derek you do some great interviews. Danica Patrick recently interviewed Dr Robert Gilbert about a variety of spiritual traditions and their deeper meanings. You should try to interview Dr Gilbert of the Vesica Institute

[@bobbyskywalker1333]

Truth yall doing gods work

[@juicemansam128]

Thank your for this video. In some of the stories of creation, when man is made, man is like the gods. However, the gods fear their creation and thus make man "blind," in other words with limitations. The stories of the Anunnaki have helped me understand our potential, just as Napoleon Hill's two books, Think and Grow Rich, and Outwitting the Devil. These two books show the two ends of human potential. When in Genesis, it says that man has eaten from the forbidden tree and is now like the gods, I know that what is being referred to is knowledge, and with knowledge you begin your ascention towards your greatest potential, as outlined in Think and Grow Rich. There is a deliberate attempt at keeping us all in a state of ignorance (as outlined in Outwitting the Devil) of what we are and how we function by poluting our minds with misleading origin stories. When you know what your are, and how you function, you will become the god of your inner realm, your mind and body. You will have the power to realign and reshape yourself. Everybody is an NPC, except the player. You are the player.

[@saidzouhri8524]

Thank you

[@craigfairweather3401]

In ‘John’ there is allusion to convey that it’s hero is greater. E.g. The Stoics’ founder wrote a book called ‘The Logos’ and introduced into Greek the term ‘ grasp’ to mean ‘understand’. In Jhn 1:5 the logos has become light and the darkness has not ‘grasped it’, a very similar word. Zeno’s greatest student Cleanthes was called ‘the well-drawer’ and see the woman at the well in Ch 4. - Dr G.Craig Fairweather.

[@NathanHale253]

Awesome ending 👏 🙌

[@ellemarvin637]

Its true! If one looks hard enough, with a desired outcome, one will find a reason to not belive. Never the less, He is your topic of this discussion, His name is being preached. 😊

[@maninalift]

I absolutely agree with the anti-essentialist point being made and was amen-ing all the way through. However on the definition of a game, i think Bernard Suits's definition comes pretty close to perfect "a game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles." Perhaps roll-and-move games don't really have any attempting since the players have no real agency, but in spirit they do. It feels like they are trying to win. I can't think of any other counter-examples.

[@rainbowkrampus]

"a game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles." This can also be used to describe the process of living.

[@pbohearn]

@@rainbowkrampus exactly

[@danbreeden8738]

Its very hard to ignore the evidence of hellenization

[@Wolf.88]

Excellent

[@gloifti]

What's fascinating to me in this discussion is the focus on "falsification" as a critical strategy. When I cut my teeth in the study of religion in the late eighties, this criterion, drawn from Karl Popper, had become foundational to the historical-scientific study of religion. Falsification and essentialism were key methodological concepts used in exposing "Romantic" approaches at a time when Joseph Campbell was having a strong cultural impact, along with New Age thinking more generally. This was a time when careers were made exposing the fascist roots of leading contributors to the field. Also, the categories of myth, ritual, cosmology, and iconography had to be approached using methods drawn from the social sciences, ones that deployed the essentialism-falsification critical lens. Burton Mack's introduction to the 1987 book on ritual sacrifice "Violent Origins" is a good example of this. The academic world wanted no part of the well established "ahistorical" "apriorist" figures like Eliade, Jung, Dumezil and Heidegger (among others) and thus figures like J Z Smith (James Tabor's mentor) who had been polemicizing against phenomenology, archetypal/formal/structural analysis and "Golden Bough methodology" took on a gatekeeping role in the methods and theories of academic religion moving forward. Much more than Campbell, Mircea Eliades' work was focussed on as an approach to the topic that didn't meet the criteria of rational study appropriate to the Post Enlightenment Academy. This was done by applying the essentialism/falsification double whammy. There was even an attempt within the AAR in the nineties to expunge the works of Eliade from the study. Of great relevance to the study of Christian origins was the rejection of the long established methods of comparative religion and the concept of synchretism. Unless one could demonstrate a causal chain of association drawn from the documentary evidence, one was "committing Jungianism" (ie relying on tropes and amplifying them to archetypes) and "seeing faces in the clouds." Thus, even outside of NT studies, the academic study of religion has marshalled the necessary methodological resources to safeguard against contributions like Miller's (and MacDonald's for that matter) and has chosen instead to promote instead approaches under the headings of "lived religion" and "critical religion" which engage in "power differential discourse analysis" and the promotion of personhood.

[@rainbowkrampus]

The systemic analysis of why things are the way they are in a field is always interesting. Personally, I'd love to see a sort of "History of Apologetics". The major players involved in accepting and rejecting various formulations of apologetics over time, generational differences, institutional politics, the role of trade and globalization that sort of thing.

[@decades5643]

It sounds like some of these scholars were spending too much time in academic institutions or "ivory towers" and not enough time with common people or in the "real world". People are influenced by their surroundings. That's just how reality works. Just take artists for example - whether it's a writer, painter, musician, filmmaker, etc. they all have influences and are influenced by their surroundings and other artists. The same is true of religious beliefs, stories, and myths. You can't put religion in a special category in order to make everything 100% unique and special. This is just as bad as apologetics (and just as delusional). With that being said, there have been people that take it too far (Zeitgeist is a good example). But that doesn't mean we should just dismiss the idea of syncretism and accuse everyone of "parallelomania".

[@gloifti]

@@decades5643 You're echoing very much the "lived religion" strand of the discipline. The difficulty, of course, in applying this model to the ancient world is that one is making "high resolution" inferences based on "low resolution" documentary and archaeological evidence. Nonetheless many scholars have gone on to have a broader impact outside of academia by speculating on the daily lives of the ancients, scholars like Mary Beard and Ken Dowden come to mind. With Christianity, Bart Ehrman's work is pretty much typical of the (dying) discipline. He tends to ridicule comparativists as the commitment to uniquely Jewish context is sacrosanct. The idea that members of a Jewish peasantry, who were likely illiterate, short lived and like most of the world never venture more that maybe fifty miles from their birthplaces, weren't likely to be overly influenced by the likes of Homer. What's more, they were fiercely anti Roman (something I find dubious as the such people probably gained economically by exchanging goods and services with the Legion, if they interacted at all. This brings up another point I always wondered about: how can you be illiterate and Torah observing? I haven't read enough Josephus, but I've always thought that the Pharisees conducted themself in the Judean/Galilean countryside much like the Taliban in Afghanistan. That is, they weren't concerned so much about the people's attitudes and beliefs as they were about enforcing religious law.

[@GrinchDec23]

​@@rainbowkrampusYES, a total history of Apologetics would likely show the mechanisms of just about every level of cultural fabrication

[@rainbowkrampus]

@@GrinchDec23 It'd also be interesting to see a comparison of jewish midrash and pesher with christian apologetics. My big issue with Tovia Singer is that he calls Paul a liar. I tend to think of that as a category error. Paul is just doing what jews were already doing up to that point for centuries. Reinterpreting texts to contain modern meaning. I think this tradition continues right the way through to today. We see an ongoing process of it now with what I like to call American Jesus. Like, it's one thing to say that people have been renegotiating the meaning of these texts since the very beginning. It's another to be able to point to the exact chain of influences that has lead us to any given modern interpretation.

[@chrisdiver6224]

Given this sophisticated level of discussion, I'm amazed that neither participant realizes that they are talking insider talk and haven't stated the core argument that the Doctor is making in terms understandable by an outsider audience.

[@jdp0359]

Couldn't agree more. I keep waiting for him to make a point that I can understand.

[@GrinchDec23]

Ahhh so you need to be lead forever without striving in understanding...try reading some books....do some soul searching without your phone etc

[@lizlanman47]

Derek does so many of these interviews that I think he forgot that some of the terms being used are not in common use.

[@chrisdiver6224]

@@lizlanman47 Ironic, because his point seems to be that who ever wrote the New Testament adopted Hellenistic mythological models in an an attempt to make Jesus UNDERSTANDABLE to a Hellenistic audience. You'd think that would have made the issue 'understandable to audience' always his primary object in his own speaking or writing. Well, it isn't fair to fault him. He's only an academic, one ruled by words and logic, not a Zen Master who uses those with a playful freedom, being 'beyond name and form'. He is 'of it', the world of words and logic (for his identity), in the way that Jesus warned about, Jesus and the Zen Master therefore being both identical in source and different in expression in order to 'speak to their condition' as Friends put it.

[@jdp0359]

Like he is the only academic, scholarly person to ever study theology this deeply. If he is as right as he says he is, how come more people don't come out and agree with him?

[@johnnehrich9601]

Wish someone would take a whole lot of descriptions of these types of events from both the pagan myths and the christian ones, and take out the specific names. Then read them to fundamentalists to ask them which ones applied to their Jesus and which ones were make-believe.

[@φαρμακεία-πρωταρχικός]

Oh that’s a good point!👌🏼🧐

[@pheresy1367]

"vandalizes the discussion"... Wow, that's a useful quote. :-)

[@georgesparks7833]

Great job 👍

[@4everseekingwisdom690]

The question should be what are the myths hiding? Perhaps how to "know thyself" and directly experience your spiritual side.. Look there my friend

[@britanikothegreat8513]

Psalms 22:1-20. Isaiah 56:11. 1Corinthians 15:34. Isaiah 62:1-2. UznuB. Hebreo 4:12.

[@scienceexplains302]

The “chariotness” is in the functionality, *combined* parts, and overall appearance. “A game is an activity or sport usually involving skill, knowledge, or chance, in which you follow fixed rules and try to win against an opponent” or against a standard Likewise, mimesis is not defined as a “photocopy”, so doesn’t require that Jesus’ stories match 100% to earlier stories.

[@RichardMiller-ym5jc]

Notions of “functionality,” “combination,” and “appearance” all require the subjective observer’s involvement and, as such, are not independent of human mental construction, which was my point and, more importantly, the point of this cardinal precept in Buddhist philosophy (google “anatman” and “simile of the chariot” to read more, concepts critically contemplated for 2,500 years straight now in that philosophy.. doubtful you’ll find a flaw in the reasoning after such near limitless human critical validation, certainly not after watching a 30-min video). That definition of the “game” merely proves my point. We can adduce hundreds of examples of “games” that violate the stasis or confinement of that definition. And “game” is but one example of this problem among countless others of conceptions that defy uniform definition. The notion of “full alignment” was not specific to “mimesis” in the clip, rather to classification and semiotic cognition, a far broader category that may include mimesis but cover any topic of typic recognition in human thought.. the famous Cambridge philosopher argued not by “definition,” but by sufficient familial resemblance.. a critique of language that is all but universally admitted in linguistic philosophy today.

[@scienceexplains302]

@@RichardMiller-ym5jc Thank you. I wasn’t necessarily saying you were wrong, but that type of argument is used to argue against consciousness as deriving from anything physical. I thought I was agreeing with you generally on things like mimesis, although not specifically on the value of a definition. But could you give an example of a game that doesn’t meet that definition?

[@RichardMiller-ym5jc]

@@scienceexplains302 Hi there.. I think for Buddhists, they contemplate in meditation the essence or locus of true self, and traditionally, they find, self as utterly elusive (is it my brain, etc etc). I think they see self as a mental figmentary construct.. and thereby build a strategy of minimal suffering around that insight. I see some merit to this, but do still see the experiential palate of consciousness to be mysterious.. I wobble on the fence on that personally, yet still value their insight). The way I applied to story to cognition had to do with what linguists and semioticians call in French the langue (the socially contractural “rules” of cognition, language, and shared meaning structure). I hope the viewers were able to feel the value / power of those insights (none of which original to me). As for the “game,” I do highly recommend searching online for (or even book reading) Wittgenstein… bit of a rummage chest.. one of his most treasured insights has been around his example of the game. I argue in my book that this applies to cognition generally, and his helpful with our notions of trope, genre, Gattung, semantics, and most any recognizable form or construct. Our species tends to parse the world more through familial resemblance than by firm/uniform definition. (Looking at the wild varieties of what we may qualify as a “chair” for instance may provide one example). In my research, I found this insight helpful in many many places (e.g., we have no clear stamp under which we may classify a text as “apocalyptic” in genre.. no matter how we define it, exceptions arise and we never get down to a single phylogenetic “definition”). We can critique (you likely as quickly as I), the definition of game you pasted. Is the game the “activity,” to use that definition, or is the activity itself merely the “playing” of the game, but still not the game itself? Appears that the game is a mental construction or framework for “play” (which is itself a rather elusive, yet fascinating notion in terms of the neurology of the human species). Of course “play” is still far too broad; many activities constitute “play” yet do not all apply to game-engagement (e.g., building a Lego model). The idea of having “rules for success” may move us in a better direction in most instance, but not all. Traditional role playing games, for instance, have no notion of winning or ultimate goal in view. All players, including the GM, win by enjoying themselves through immersement in the fantasy world, being true to their character(s) / role(s) etc. “Quests” exist and can be satisfying, but often more by the journey than by any moment of “completion.” To consider a different example, there is a current radio game show called “Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me” wherein the “contestants” just have fun answering questions.. the score itself is pointless .. almost just a mockery and of no competitive significance.. the “playing” is purely a means to human internal entertainment, laughter (another elusive neurological phenomenon), and social togetherness. The success of the show is in its repeated demonstration that “winning” never achieves the slightest meaning or purpose to the activity (which makes the show great). Also note in the definition a nod to Wittgenstein’s very point, even if unwittingly, through the phrase “usually involves…”, which speaks to my point as well. I would soften it further to “often involves” or “may involve”.. and then list out a larger cluster of variously recurring signature characteristics. Cultural anthropologists study the genetic flow of myth through the ages.. something like rivers or trees of genetic variation rather than “lanes” or “stamps. The classic work on this was Frazer’s The Golden Bough. The translation trope was also non-static in its varieties and permutations, yet nevertheless unmistakable. This was what I sought to convey in the clip.

[@RichardMiller-ym5jc]

@@scienceexplains302, thank you, btw, for your sincere, good-hearted engagement. I wish that were more common in this field or subject matter. We do not all need to agree-indeed critical engagement is to be encouraged in any domain of human “knowing”-but we certainly can delight in the engagement and not take things so personally.. It’s a bit like a game whereby we all stand to win. 😊

[@scienceexplains302]

@@RichardMiller-ym5jc Thank you. “A bit like a game,” Other than mentioning it, I’ll let that one slide 😉

[@davidwolfe4770]

It makes sense that if you're trying to draw in people well versed in a long established religious/cultural tradition, you present your new alternative as a variation on familiar themes. Here's the new Romulus, Heracles, etc.Join our club instead.

[@pauledwardtrejo6903]

Derek -- Morton Smith explains the exorcism in the Gospel better than anybody I ever read. His book, Jesus the Magician (1978) is clearly not literalist -- but gives a serious treatment to the exorcism, the angels, the Spirit. It's more than Myth. It's Historical Myth. See?

[@britaom3299]

Thanks for reminding me of this. I had read this a long time ago (20+ years now) but didn't give it much thought at the time. Now that I've left Christianity behind and have become familiar with real scholarship about the origins of Christianity and the early church, will have to revisit this one. BTW, I just poked around and see that people like Ehrmann and Tabor PRAISE this book as being a pathfinding work that always deserves a reread. Heading over to AMZ to order a copy!

[@andrewsuggs2381]

7:33 “When we see our own children, they are like us, but not precisely like us…” Right, the differences in things/people/issues is what makes them unique or different. :(

[@PoeLemic]

What does he mean by "Translation" (0:57)? I don't think it means changing from one language to another. How is it used in a religious sense? Okay, sorry, Derrick explains it around 1:50. I just got too anxious and wanted to know exactly what D's talking about. (My definition) ... Translation is how a human mortal becomes a god.

[@bobertjones2300]

Be patient in these scholarly studies

[@georgekustner3440]

Advice for Richard C Miller. Humility is transformative and it gives the mind a chance to evolve.

[@shannonvanpatten8341]

It all came from a common source and many tried to fit themselves into it like a square peg in a round hole, like the Sisters of Cinderella who cut of their toes and heels to try snd make the glass slipper fit them.

[@apubakeralpuffdaddy392]

Derek, Derek, Derek. When are you going to get Trent Horn or Jimmy Akin on your show to debate you?

[@hermes2056]

Trent horn got obliterated by carrier.

[@apubakeralpuffdaddy392]

Hey Derek: When are you going to invite Zachary King on to your program?

[@travisjazzbo3490]

Apologists don't pay attention to see what is right in front of them either because they are too afraid, or they have a financial interest at stake

[@φαρμακεία-πρωταρχικός]

Nailed it! Apologists: * 😒

[@GrinchDec23]

Like every movement...ever

[@craigbikes8831]

so close to 100k bro!

[@awfulgoodmovies]

Yup, NT and OT read like a superhero comic.

[@Sportliveonline]

check out the definition of the word Recursion

[@josephtaylor4405]

There is an old video. A toddler who had only encountered tablets had a physical magazine put in front of her. She tapped the page trying to advance the page. DIAL 1-800-

[@edwardfischer3944]

ALEXANDER THE GREAT : " PLEASE TEACH US OH WISE BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHER " BUDDHIST : "HOW DID YOU GET HERE ? " ALEXANDER : " THIS CHARIOT " BUDDHIST : " NO, YOU GOT HERE BY WAR "

[@bacomiric1681]

Evolution is the greatest fable ever told.

[@antoninocannizzo4905]

@@chadtyrone how do we have two genders? Evolution cant explain that.

[@karenlankford8558]

We cannot tell from Biblical stories what was true. What we can tell is what ideas the authors were trying to convey. By the way that stories were structured and the themes that that they used, you can tell what kind of figure they thought Moses or Jesus was. The stories were designed to convey ideas, not to function as historical records.

[@marshallsmom]

Didn't Paul compare himself to Socrates? He spoke to the angel on his shoulder. Socrates spoke to the demon on his shoulder.

[@yahkhakeerah796]

Although Jesus performed 37 miracles in the Bible.. why isn't prophet Muhammad spoken as highly as Jesus when he performed over 100 miracles..I'm I'm curious because this is a question I asked Christian's but I can never get an answer..

[@travisjazzbo3490]

To bad Joseph Campbell, the Father of the Study of Mythologies, wasn't alive during this time of podcasts like yours. While he did leave behind some great interviews with Moyers, modern Podcasts are what really bring these scholars to prominence.

[@Chaos46992]

every game is a challenge

[@Chaos46992]

well maybe not

[@scienceexplains302]

*Falsify mimesis?* In MacDonald’s case, I would show, if possible, that there are more plot points, etc, from other cultures or more original points than Homeric points.

[@rfalls977]

It seems so obvious after listening to these interviews. I wonder why scholars like Ehrman, Allison, and Tabor resist the notation of a substantive Greek cultural influence on the stories of Jesus. I’d like to hear their side in detail.

[@markballantyne393]

The best evidence for the existence of God is that in pre history every race and culture in the world instinctively knew there was a God, we know that by buried ritual and carvings, it all went wrong when our species began writing and pretending they could describe God , but for 300,000 years humans gave gloryy by being what God made them as do plants and animals, we no longer understood that when the first humans decided to conceptualise God and name him, nevertheless the first humanoids instinct was right there is a God , countless billion people over 300,000 years cant be wrong , proof in the existence of God ,and I know too.

[@TheDanEdwards]

You're fantasizing.

[@markballantyne393]

@@TheDanEdwards you're a school teacher, poor student's!

[@edtorrejon2935]

who does he say Jesus is

[@apubakeralpuffdaddy392]

Hey Derek & Richard: the 1990s called, they want their Jesus Seminar back.

[@kronos01ful]

You all need JESUS 💖

[@teroomakirai5170]

(Jesus explained) "Body & Spirit" ( example ) "Tree is tree not Wind" (That Proof)🤔🧐😇

[@georgekustner3440]

No. Body and consciousness.

[@johnchamberlain9775]

IT'S AMAZING THEY BELIEVE BOOKS WRITTEN BY MAN. BUT NOT THE WORD OF YHVH.

[@jennytodd6150]

To many Eyewitnesses Accounts of the death and Resurrection of Jesus including letters from Pilot to Caesar about his reaction to Jesus including how he looked and his Personality. There are many more eyewitnesses on his life if you look for it which I doubt you would do. When taking you last breath someday, are you sure really sure, want to take a chance, do you really.

[@ancientfiction5244]

Eyewitnesses? Not so much. *"Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.* Unfortunately, much of the general public is not familiar with scholarly resources like the one quoted above; instead, Christian apologists often put out a lot of material, such as The Case For Christ, targeted toward lay audiences, who are not familiar with scholarly methods, in order to argue that the Gospels are the eyewitness testimonies of either Jesus’ disciples or their attendants. *The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure-Jesus Christ-to confirm the faith of their communities."* *As scholarly sources like the Oxford Annotated Bible note, the Gospels are not historical works (even if they contain some historical kernels).* *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* Also, look up: *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*

[@lilchaos4792]

​@@ancientfiction5244 So Jesus WAS real. Thanks for confirming.

[@jennytodd6150]

@@ancientfiction5244 As a life time student of History and a Dab of Archaeology and my age I have seen dates and times come and go thru wrong Data many times, I will stick to Eyewitness accounts to men and women who were there and many were Executed for what they saw, I can understand why many lose their Faith due to Faulty teachings even in the Churches. I have a feeling your getting false infro from the Tradition of Men as Jesus Predicted several thousand years ago, either knowing or unknowing as you seems to be a very nice young Man but Deceived along the path of your life, that is your Choice.

[@marshallsmom]

I am old & have had a stroke so my memory is not what it was. In Acts, Paul speaks of the angel on his shoulder. Isn't he comparing himself to Socrates who spoke to the demon on his shoulder?

[@randyreneau2086]

Having a Greek Codex Siniaticus how much have the Church added to the Gospels. In Mark it was added the last 12 verses, in Luke 24:51 it was added that both Jesus went to heaven, in the Codex none of gospels has Jesus going to heaven only in Acts which Paul doesn’t have any experience in his letters. This is the churches big con.

[@randyreneau2086]

I have the book and I am now reading another book, I will be reading his book next.

[@RocketKirchner]

In regards to literature like the Bible . Here it goes : Athiest and theist fundamentalist miss it . Next : what literary device does the writer use ? What is writer nuanced really trying to say .

[@botarakutabi1199]

What "fundamentals" do fundamentalist atheists hold to? Also, I have seen critical atheistic biblical scholars ask what the writers were trying to say, usually by comparing their literary tactics to other literary tactics of the time.

[@kevinomara5030]

What a great discussion. The duck is rhetorical at this point, apologists really don’t have an argument for any indelibility of the text. Especially after Pope John Paul II proved fallibility.

[@kevinomara5030]

Infallibility = indelibly

[@danielbarton8974]

It’s confusing because we don’t live like these people .Hebrew bible was a re interpretation of older middle eastern traditions .new testament is a re interpretation of Hebrew bible ,Persian religion ,Greek philisophy living in a hellenised Roman ruled empire .no wonder it’s confusing .they were confused too .to the point where it divided the whole of the Jewish establishment

[@kierkegaardztruelove]

If the interviewer would just facilitate the interview, not offer his opinions, and talk less, the should would be much better.

[@meteor1237]

Seems Christianity was reverse engineered.

[@joedekkachinko2460]

"What is it that every game has in common"??? RULES!!! Without "rules" a game, any game, cannot be engaged in because nobody knows how to "play" the game! HELLO?!?!? Time to take a refresher course in common sense.

[@RichardMiller-ym5jc]

We are discussing cognition, that is, how to recognize a “game.” The notion of “rules,” thus in itself, would certainly be inadequate, right? We find rules in nearly every quarter of society, not merely in games. So, the presence of “rules” is inadequate to signal the presence of a game.

[@tryme3969]

Are you an ex disciple, current disciple, or never has been a disciple of The Lord Jesus Christ?

[@hermes2056]

Jesus died about 2000 years ago. So no Derek, and Dr.Miller aren't that old.

[@Jd-808]

Allison calling Jesus an exorcist isn’t based on one passage in Matthew. He’s saying there isn’t a literal history there but it’s inspired by the memory of Jesus being an exorcist, which is all over all of the gospels. I have no idea why this is so confusing for Derek. I also have no idea why the idea that there might be a historical basis for the gospels is “troubling”. That’s just a really bad way of approaching any ancient text.

[@Jd-808]

To put it simply, Jesus’s existence is a historical fact, and with that in mind, it becomes unreasonable to think his life wasn’t a factor in its own narrativization. All Allison is doing is not leaving this factor out of his interpretation of the construction of the gospels. In any complete interpretation it would only be “troubling” not to do this at all.

[@hermes2056]

Are demons real?

[@fredgillespie5855]

The greatest myth of all is that Bible scholars actually understand the Bible.

[@apubakeralpuffdaddy392]

An even greater Myth is that Atheists, like Derek & friends, have childhood hang-ups & emotional issues that serve as the underlying reasons for their 'intellectual' criticisms of Christianity.

[@ancientfiction5244]

I think they understand it better than most people. Maybe you should spend some time at the below website. *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei

[@gary100dm]

This is Plato's idealism.

[@0786AHA]

Greatest enemy of Christianity is education. 😂😂

[@davidpersson250]

Love leaving christianity and other religious shit

[@apubakeralpuffdaddy392]

Ummmm, Christianity, specifically, Catholicism invented formalized Education: schools, universities, hospitals. The greatest enemy to education is Marxism.

[@georgekustner3440]

It was a Belgian priest, who developed the Big Bang theory.

[@apubakeralpuffdaddy392]

@@georgekustner3440 Testify, Brother George! Father Georges Lemaitre.

[@oneeye1572]

@@georgekustner3440 and then?

[@stevecollins4567]

A game is a distraction.

[@rayagoldendropofsun397]

Chariotness is not found on Google, nor in the English dictionaries . "Where is your Chariotness ?", "how did you get here."? Common sense understanding, It simply means the horse/horses weren't presently hitched with the Chariot, or the Chariot was in shambles, and if not, then U have confirmed that the very intelligent Monk, asked a stupid question . Using

[@termination9353]

- The Gospel was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.

[@apubakeralpuffdaddy392]

Funny, the ad B4 the show started was that hotel commercial about the illuminati being talking dolphins. Kind like the stuff you're propagating here, Champ. Get educated, Brah. Leave the conspiracy theories in your childhood fantasies, next to your anime hotties.

[@ancientfiction5244]

No. *United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Gospel of John:* "Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. *Jn 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work.* The prologue (Jn 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus’ discourse in the upper room (Jn 14:31; 18:1). To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original. *Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form* are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. For instance, some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (Jn 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (Jn 5; 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been woven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament." *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*

[@termination9353]

@@ancientfiction5244 Not an independent investigation. Conflict of interest.

[@yahkamba7788]

There are myths. Many of them. What stops a myth from being a myth? A presumption that tales about Gods are ab initio false underlies mythology. If you can step into a presumed myth and show its God is real, then that myth ceases to be a myth. Even if the Jesus story were presumed to be a myth, the underlying support for the reality of the person and significant elements of his story found in prophecy would immediately take it outside the realms of mythology! So, those labouring to take the living story of Jesus into mythology have simply chosen to ignore or discount the prophetic foundation of his story. They look for similarities with some myths without noting the significant difference of the absence of the prophetic foundation in these other stories. The Jews were looking for a Messiah in the period of Jesus because there was a prophetic expectation of one. To analysis or seek his history without recourse to these prophecies must be considered superficial.

[@SaraSara-di3hs]

What I find funny is that in one breath Miller says it was common for people to imitate previous leaders to show legitimacy of someone's rule but then Derek, oh so confidently, states that Jesus fasting is not historical because he imitated Moses. Boi-- your bias is showing and it ain't being too rational right now

[@Raiden-the-Goat32]

If someone wanted to write a better gospel replace the word angel with alien invaders. This would literally turn the gospels into an alien invasion book. From this point every time the word angel is used just put alien in it's place. It would at least be more interesting 😂

[@Se7enStars369]

😴

[@berglen100]

Mind story does hide the term for pattern you think its about person called Jesus, The first hint is to search for God Kingdom outside or inside your mind your reminded to look inside, the casting of old wine is mixed with new wine does cause the heart to emotionally look and wait outside for whats in you unseen and not observational so its not about time that old covenants mask hides Christ in you, two new covenants teachings have taught only milk to those still mixing and following outside prophesy and knowledge 1Cor 12: Was still children needing outside powers seen, 1Cor 13: Then offered a better inside where 12: Fades away for adults with Christ your mind not an outside person. Philip 2:5Let this MIND be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God Luke 17: when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with OBSERVATION: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. So why did Paul reminded this if your adult minded in New creations where you wake about written stories Allegory no male no female nor jew, gentile, ect...........in Christ mind after awoken from Saul/outside to Paul INSIDE Gal 4:22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24Which things are an ALLEGORY. How does your mind becomes Isaac a pattern we all wake about or will happen this before you body die, then you will come back under sun. No one lost is supernatural facts, flesh mind can't say their name I AM. Christ same MIND even called dead seed always sprouts and falls but never lost. 2Cor 13:5Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is IN YOU. (meat teaching) Romans 2:28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.11:33O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34For who hath known the MIND of the Lord?

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Jesus stories replaced the Yahweh stories after Yahweh watched with indifference as the Romans destroyed his Temple and conquered his people. The orthodox Jews clung to the wreckage of their defeated god while the new religion, Christianity, moved on with stories of his son the wandering miracle worker, Yeshua.

[@janettedavis6627]

Caesar gave the ten commandments on tablets of stone. Caesar was God.

[@Darisiabgal7573]

The problem however with the argument is the constructed christianity versus doctrine versus codices. Of you confront christianity about all its similarities with mythos/legend exterior to christianity the shift the playing field. For example Easter, easter is the indoeuropean/germanic goddess of dawn, but wait the real name of tge christian holiday is pasha, derived from the jewish passover feast. When we go into the descriptions of heaven and hell, these mythos are constructed from medieval literature which in turn borrow from exterior mythos and legend. Its perfectly legitimate for a pastor to discuss a mythological non-canonical heaven and hell, but when they are confronted they can argue these things arent actually part of some earlier doctine. When we get to roman catholicism there is a admonition that "christianity took time to develop" which blows the doors wide open. There is no footing to discriminate development from non-jewish borrowings. And so we are down to perceptions Matthew luke Acts Pauline epistles are meant not to be true so much as to steer christians down a pathway of acceptable belief to the culmination in John and the epistles of John. But when is luke acts and John written? The problem of defining christianity and its associated mythos is that there is Always an earlier layer were that mythos did not exist. Jesus as the dying and rising god. See Epistle of James, Mark, Pauline Epistles, Matthew, Luke. Jesus as the dissemenated son of god. See Paul, Q, Epistle of James, Mark Jesus as bodily resurrected. See Paul, Q. Jesus as the Jewish messiah. See Q and gispel of Tomas Jesus as the live restoring wonder worker. See Q. Jesus as the Savior. See the Epistle of James and Q. Jesus as the Destroyer of the Temple. See Epistle of James, Ebionite texts. When we talk about the Jesus legends you can always create a version of christianity reflecting an earler understanding that does not have the fictionalizations in it. As a consequence you need to define what version of Jesus you think the myth applies to. McDonald does a good job of assigning greco-roman notions to specific texts, but he does so with a bit of a bias. His bias is to automatically deny any supernatural or divine nature to Jesus. But this is already in Pauls teachung and we dont have to use our imagination why. Paul was a mystic and he was trained by mystics of the Jesus cult. In fact one of the most atteseted saying is the seek, find, marvel, empower, rest sayings, ots in all the genres and its mystical, not only is it mystical but its from the eastern mediterranean, its greek. This is where the definition of "who gored whose ox" takes a spin. Why? Because we already see in Pauls letters that the following outside pf Jerusalem has begun to radiate in the direction of gnosticism (as occurred in Ninhevah) and full to partial preterism BEFORE the fall of the first temple. The mythos and legend os growing within a Jewish context and we can see, as in John, the first sign, c. 60 CE is using greek memesis to explain itself within a greco roman world. We cannot argue completely that there was no fictionalization in Jewish ebionite traditions. The mother of Jesus, mary, grabbed Jesus by a hair on his head and took him to mt. Horeb. We are simply discussing the form of fictionalization. We can argue that Q and EoYacov represented in their original form the samctioned face of christianity, but thats just the face. Paul is another facade, but as the scholars reoeatedly tell you thats half of the story. The other half is what Pauls convertees are seeing and experiencing and what are they reporting to Paul. Paul is not only faced with "the pillars", he is also facing other competotive strands of belief that he has to state by some rhetoric that his divine pneuma experience is superior to everyone elses "ecperience". Once we reach that point pandoras box is already wide open. I do not like Dennis Miller's explanations, i don't think they really add anything. You seem to be fascinated with him, but his explanations lack in depth insights and are rather plastic.

[@MrBroza.]

The best part of this video was the last 10 seconds

[@henryschmit3340]

"Was The New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions? ... liberal scholars. I refer to the frequency with which their writings evidence a careless, even sloppy use of language. One frequently encounters scholars who first use Christian terminology to describe pagan beliefs and practices, and then marvel at the striking parallels they think they have discovered. One can go a long way toward “proving” early Christian dependence on the mysteries by describing some mystery belief or practice in Christian terminology. J. Godwin does this in his book, Mystery Religions in the Ancient World, which describes the criobolium as a “blood baptism” in which the initiate is “washed in the blood of the lamb.” While uninformed readers might be stunned by this remarkable similarity to Christianity (see Rev. 7:14), knowledgeable readers will see such a claim as the reflection of a strong, negative bias against Christianity. Pagan Rituals and the Christian Sacraments. The mere fact that Christianity has a sacred meal and a washing of the body is supposed to prove that it borrowed these ceremonies from similar meals and washings in the pagan cults. By themselves, of course, such outward similarities prove nothing. After all, religious ceremonies can assume only a limited number of forms, and they will naturally relate to important or common aspects of human life. The more important question is the meaning of the pagan practices. Ceremonial washings that antedate the New Testament have a different meaning from New Testament baptism, while pagan washings after A.D. 100 come too late to influence the New Testament and, indeed, might themselves have been influenced by Christianity. Sacred meals in the pre-Christian Greek mysteries fail to prove anything since the chronology is all wrong. The Greek ceremonies that are supposed to have influenced first-century Christians had long since disappeared by the time we get to Jesus and Paul. Sacred meals in such post-Christian mysteries as Mithraism come too late. Unlike the initiation rites of the mystery cults, Christian baptism looks back to what a real, historical person - Jesus Christ - did in history. Advocates of the mystery cults believed their “sacraments” had the power to give the individual the benefits of immortality in a mechanical or magical way, without his or her undergoing any moral or spiritual transformation. This certainly was not Paul’s view, either of salvation or of the operation of the Christian sacraments. In contrast with pagan initiation ceremonies, Christian baptism is not a mechanical or magical ceremony. It is clear that the sources of Christian baptism are not to be found either in the taurobolium (which is post first-century anyway) or in the washings of the pagan mysteries. Its sources lie rather in the washings of purification found in the Old Testament and in the Jewish practice of baptizing proselytes, the latter being the most likely source for the baptistic practices of John the Baptist. Of all the mystery cults, only Mithraism had anything that resembled the Lord’s Supper. A piece of bread and a cup of water were placed before initiates while the priest of Mithra spoke some ceremonial words. But the late introduction of this ritual precludes its having any influence upon first-century Christianity. Claims that the Lord’s Supper was derived from pagan sacred meals are grounded in exaggerations and oversimplifications. The supposed parallels and analogies break down completely. Any quest for the historical antecedents of the Lord’s Supper is more likely to succeed if it stays closer to the Jewish foundations of the Christian faith than if it wanders off into the practices of the pagan cults. The Lord’s Supper looked back to a real, historical person and to something He did in history. The occasion for Jesus’ introduction of the Christian Lord’s Supper was the Jewish Passover feast. Attempts to find pagan sources for baptism and the Lord’s Supper must be judged to fail. Exaggerations and oversimplifications abound in this kind of literature. One encounters overblown claims about alleged likenesses between baptism and the Lord’s Supper and similar “sacraments” in certain mystery cults. Attempts to find analogies between the resurrection of Christ and the alleged “resurrections” of the mystery deities involve massive amounts of oversimplification and inattention to detail. The Death of the Mystery Gods and the Death of Jesus. The best way to evaluate the alleged dependence of early Christian beliefs about Christ’s death and resurrection on the pagan myths of a dying and rising savior-god is to examine carefully the supposed parallels. The death of Jesus differs from the deaths of the pagan gods in at least six ways: (1) None of the so-called savior-gods died for someone else. The notion of the Son of God dying in place of His creatures is unique to Christianity. (2) Only Jesus died for sin. As Günter Wagner observes, to none of the pagan gods “has the intention of helping men been attributed. The sort of death that they died is quite different (hunting accident, self-emasculation, etc.).” (3) Jesus died once and for all (Heb. 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-14). In contrast, the mystery gods were vegetation deities whose repeated deaths and resuscitations depict the annual cycle of nature. (4) Jesus’ death was an actual event in history. The death of the mystery god appears in a mythical drama with no historical ties; its continued rehearsal celebrates the recurring death and rebirth of nature. The incontestable fact that the early church believed that its proclamation of Jesus’ death and resurrection was grounded in an actual historical event makes absurd any attempt to derive this belief from the mythical, nonhistorical stories of the pagan cults. (5) Unlike the mystery gods, Jesus died voluntarily. Nothing like this appears even implicitly in the mysteries. And finally, Jesus’ death was not a defeat but a triumph. Christianity stands entirely apart from the pagan mysteries in that its report of Jesus’ death is a message of triumph. Even as Jesus was experiencing the pain and humiliation of the cross, He was the victor. The New Testament’s mood of exultation contrasts sharply with that of the mystery religions, whose followers wept and mourned for the terrible fate that overtook their gods. The Risen Christ and the “Rising Savior-Gods”. Which mystery gods actually experienced a resurrection from the dead? Certainly no early texts refer to any resurrection of Attis. Nor is the case for a resurrection of Osiris any stronger. One can speak of a “resurrection” in the stories of Osiris, Attis, and Adonis only in the most extended of senses. For example, after Isis gathered together the pieces of Osiris’s dismembered body, Osiris became “Lord of the Underworld.” This is a poor substitute for a resurrection like that of Jesus Christ. And, no claim can be made that Mithras was a dying and rising god. The tide of scholarly opinion has turned dramatically against attempts to make early Christianity dependent on the so-called dying and rising gods of Hellenistic paganism. Any unbiased examination of the evidence shows that such claims must be rejected. Christian Rebirth and Cultic Initiation Rites. Liberal writings on the subject are full of sweeping generalizations to the effect that early Christianity borrowed its notion of rebirth from the pagan mysteries. But the evidence makes it clear that there was no pre-Christian doctrine of rebirth for the Christians to borrow. There are actually very few references to the notion of rebirth in the evidence that has survived, and even these are either very late or very ambiguous. They provide no help in settling the question of the source of the New Testament use of the concept. The claim that pre-Christian mysteries regarded their initiation rites as a kind of rebirth is unsupported by any evidence contemporary with such alleged practices. Instead, a view found in much later texts is read back into earlier rites, which are then interpreted quite speculatively as dramatic portrayals of the initiate’s “new birth.” The belief that pre-Christian mysteries used “rebirth” as a technical term lacks support from even one single text. Most contemporary scholars maintain that the mystery use of the concept of rebirth (testified to only in evidence dated after A.D. 300) differs so significantly from its New Testament usage that any possibility of a close link is ruled out. The most that such scholars are willing to concede is the possibility that some Christians borrowed the metaphor or imagery from the common speech of the time and recast it to fit their distinctive theological beliefs. Liberal efforts to undermine the uniqueness of the Christian revelation via claims of a pagan religious influence collapse quickly once a full account of the information is available. It is clear that the liberal arguments exhibit astoundingly bad scholarship. Indeed, this conclusion may be too generous. According to one writer, a more accurate account of these bad arguments would describe them as “prejudiced irresponsibility.” But in order to become completely informed on these matters, wise readers will work through material cited in the brief bibliography." ~ Christian Research Institute

[@lilchaos4792]

Perfectly stated.

[@hermes2056]

So your magic guy is more special than the other magic guys?

[@henryschmit3340]

@@hermes2056 Since there is no real science or logic that supports your belief that everything made itself, then your own belief is fictional. For your belief to have any validity, you would need to have a magic man/miracle worker. But you don't. So logically, my belief in a miracle worker/intelligent designer/Creator makes infinitely more sense.

[@hermes2056]

@@henryschmit3340 there's no way you wrote that, and intended for me to seriously respond.

[@henryschmit3340]

@@hermes2056 I am 100% serious, so how you respond is irrelevant to that.

[@darrendelaney8161]

i wonder if a book that asserts magic is real as its base premise. will be viewed as anything other than nonsense? oooohhhh that is whats going on here, sorry.

[@janettedavis6627]

Parables . Ever study law? Remember the law examples you had to make up the New Testament is full of them .

[@Sham9909]

Too high for me.

[@Frank-ky8bk]

You do realize while you're sitting in he'll legions of demons are going read those books right back to you, forever. Let me know how that works out for you.

[@botarakutabi1199]

Sounds made up

[@Pax-Africana]

If the story about Jesus is a fable in other religions, why is Jesus story a Monotheism while the similar stories are deemed paganism or idolatry? I'll give you a lead! Consider the story about the staff of Moses which turned into a snake and the Pharaoh's magicians serpents; we are told Moses'snakes swallowed the pagans' snakes. WHY WAS THAT?

[@botarakutabi1199]

Because religous writers want their story to out do their enemies/rivals stories?

[@Pax-Africana]

@@botarakutabi1199 That is the naturalistic approach to the story, but here we are in revelation. Why would the Romans ditch Caeasar Augustus the son of god by senatorial law for Jesus the son of foreign God yet they have the same marketing edge in their respective story?

[@botarakutabi1199]

​@@Pax-Africana When they called Caesar son of god, they meant that his actual father was deified. "On 1 January 42 BC, the Senate posthumously recognized Julius Caesar as a divinity of the Roman state, divus Iulius. Octavian was able to further his cause by emphasizing the fact that he was divi filius, "Son of the Divine"" It probably happened because he was dead for centuries as splintering Christian cults gained power and favor. Caeasar Augustus died 14 AD. It wasn't until 381 AD that a trinitarian sect of Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

[@Pax-Africana]

@@botarakutabi1199 @@botarakutabi1199 Look, Christians were murdered because they had refused to offer bull sacrifice to Caesar as to God. The point being, the Roman state believed in the imperial cult of Caesar. Some people had their citizenship revoked for refusing to offer prayers to Caesar, because they were already offering praises to Jesus. We are still in the oral preaching period, because no book about Jesus as son of god was available yet, even the illiterate converts from the paganism, and those slaves wouldn't able to access those books anyway. So don't throw that crap on me saying every story writer wants to do out the next. You can be your own God for now but I am pretty sure you will regret it one day... Now answer my question: why would a Roman Citizen ditch Caesar August as the son of god for Jesus a foreign god.

[@Pax-Africana]

@@botarakutabi1199 Look, Christians were the ones murdered because they had refused to offer bull sacrifice to Caesar as to God. The point being, the Roman state believed in the imperial cult of Caesar. Some people had their citizenship revoked for refusing to offer prayers to Caesar, because they were already offering praises to Jesus. We are still in the oral preaching period, because no book about Jesus as son of god was available yet, even the illiterate converts from the paganism, and those slaves wouldn't be able to get access to those books anyway. So don't throw that crap on my way saying every story writer wants to do out the next. You can be your own God for now but I am pretty sure you will regret it one day...