I appreciate your article; however, you still would have to prove that the writers actually knew these legions and also depended on them. I guess your article simply lacks evidence of these two fundamental steps.
I also noted a significant difference between the parallels. The stories in myth were clearly written as myth; however, the gospels don't employ this; rather, they are concrete and do not rely on mythical factors such as language and context being written as historical records given by multiple eyewitnesses in varying contexts.
I just didn't find your argument convincing at all because you lack many components that would be necessary in order to demonstrate your point.
Myth has been with us from the beginning of time; however, Christianity is the only way that claims eyewitness testimony that was investigated by third parties who wanted to determine the nature of the claims.
Anonymous, are you the same person who's been commenting anonymously all over my blog lately? Just wondering.
"you still would have to prove that the writers actually knew these legions and also depended on them."
These were all commonly known stories in the same culture that the gospel story began in. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to show that the gospel writers did NOT know about these stories. Furthermore, The similarities ARE what proves that there was some influence of paganism on Christianity.
"The stories in myth were clearly written as myth; however, the gospels don't employ this; rather, they are concrete and do not rely on mythical factors such as language and context being written as historical records given by multiple eyewitnesses in varying contexts."
Bullshit. The gospel of Mark contains plenty of markers that it is myth: But I'm not going to spend my time rebutting that, I've got better things to do. Start reading some scholarly books on Mark and you will understand what I mean
I appreciate your article; however, you still would have to prove that the writers actually knew these legions and also depended on them. I guess your article simply lacks evidence of these two fundamental steps.
ReplyDeleteI also noted a significant difference between the parallels. The stories in myth were clearly written as myth; however, the gospels don't employ this; rather, they are concrete and do not rely on mythical factors such as language and context being written as historical records given by multiple eyewitnesses in varying contexts.
I just didn't find your argument convincing at all because you lack many components that would be necessary in order to demonstrate your point.
Myth has been with us from the beginning of time; however, Christianity is the only way that claims eyewitness testimony that was investigated by third parties who wanted to determine the nature of the claims.
Anonymous, are you the same person who's been commenting anonymously all over my blog lately?
ReplyDeleteJust wondering.
"you still would have to prove that the writers actually knew these legions and also depended on them."
These were all commonly known stories in the same culture that the gospel story began in. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to show that the gospel writers did NOT know about these stories. Furthermore, The similarities ARE what proves that there was some influence of paganism on Christianity.
"The stories in myth were clearly written as myth; however, the gospels don't employ this; rather, they are concrete and do not rely on mythical factors such as language and context being written as historical records given by multiple eyewitnesses in varying contexts."
Bullshit. The gospel of Mark contains plenty of markers that it is myth: But I'm not going to spend my time rebutting that, I've got better things to do. Start reading some scholarly books on Mark and you will understand what I mean