It's counter-religious to listen to Christians whinging about secularism since Jesus first brought it about. Jesus didn't name his ministry of faith and social caring. Jesus we are told, brought people in as a teacher (12 apostles)to send them out to educate others so they in turn could go out into their world and behave as (inclusionist) taught by Jesus. Jesus was about empowering the little guy dominated by the jewish exclusionist. Christianity used Jesus to spread it's message. Christianity is not an extension of Jesus's ministry. When Peter asked to build his church Jesus gave very explicit instructions as to the foundations of that church. The Christian Churches have not honoured that explicit instruction. Of course the early church never imagined that the masses would ever aquire the ability to read or articulate much beyond basic animal husbandry. The Christian Churches well knew their inclusion of some aspects of pagan belief and ritual in the name of appeasement and religious conversion. They were willing to trade principle and belief for power and governance. Jesus fought institutions because he saw them to be corrupted or corruptable to mans needs not for Gods.

YngNLuvnIt, Good observation. The problem with some readers is they take the word of what is written without research on facts presented.

Chapter 19:27 And now about these enemies of mine who didn't want me to be their king-bring them in and execute them right here in my presence.

These are sentences within the story and are referenced 1-48, so there are Forty seven other sentences that make up the moral of the story.

19:27 was a sentence relating to a story he told listener as he was nearing Jerusalem.

He said to them that the Kingdom of heaven would not be created over night as there was much change needed.

And began to tell a story about a nobleman who was crowned a King ina far land.

The story is headed the "ten servants" in which ten servants were given gold and silver to invest for him while he was gone.

But his people hated him and sent a delegation after him to say they did not want him to be their king.

Upon his return for those servants who worked hard to invest and make money for him were rewarded with Governing positions, for those who did nothing, they received nothing.

And so then we get to 19:27.

It doesn't finish there, only another 21 sentences, whereby he has a triumphant entry into Jerusalem, Weeps over Jerusalem, clears the temple only to find out that other religious law and other leaders of the people began planning how to kill him.

Luke 19:48 But they could think of nothing, because all the people hung on every word he said.

Myths are "stories about divine beings, generally arranged in a coherent system; they are revered as true and sacred; (emphasis on TRUE) they are endorsed by rulers and priests; and closely linked to religion. Once this link is broken, and the actors in the story are not regarded as gods but as human heroes, giants or fairies, it is no longer a myth but a folktale. Where the central actor is divine but the story is trivial ... the result is religious legend, not myth." [J. Simpson & S. Roud, "Dictionary of English Folklore," Oxford, 2000, p.254]

BrainDrain please pay more attention to verbs. Myths are according to your source "revered" as true. So for some they are true and for others they are not true. The meaning of myth in the more special sense of the word is much more complex than Simpson / Roud’s meaning. Please consider.

According to G.S. Kirk in Myth: Its Meanings and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures : a myth’s action is complicated; the central character tends to behave differently; the family relationships are noted; they are attached to a particular region; the story does not rely on disguises and tricks; it relies on the unpredictable reactions of individuals, personalities rather than types; a distinguishing characteristic of myth is their free-ranging and often paradoxical fantasy (this is , for Kirk, a quality that sets many traditional tales apart from those that specialise in neatness and a kind of logic); the curious lack of ordinary logic operates quite apart from the consequence of the supernatural components which both apply in myths and folktales, however, in folktales one event leads naturally to another (given the initial assumptions, for example, that one speaking character may be an animal); in myths the supernatural component often produces drastic and unexpected changes in the forward movement of the action; also Kirk says that “myths tend to possess that element of ‘seriousness’’’, establishing and confirming rights and institutions or exploring and reflecting problems or preoccupations …” This is an important aspect in relation to Jesus and the New testament. (cont.)

Myths also, for Kirk, often have main characters that are superhuman, gods or semi-divine heroes, or animals who turn into culture heroes in the era of human and cultural creation; myths often are usually placed in a timeless past whereas, folktales are said to have taken place in a historical time –in the past but not the distant or primeval past; Kirk says that folktales use of “once upon a time” implies historical time rather than creation or the first of men or the golden age. The Bible, I think, has enough elements and components that - if we don’t see it as a true account- it can be referred to as a myth.

Kirk says that there is mobility from one genre to another especially from folktale into myth. Kirk points out that the Perseus story is a myth with strong folktale components. I think that that the gist of a myth is true is quiet reasonable position to take - even though the components that make up that myth are false.

So for Kirk: “Myths often have some serious underlying purpose beyond that of telling a story. Folktales, on the hand, tend to reflect on simple social situations; they play on ordinary fears and an desires as well as on men’s appreciation of neat and ingenious solutions; and they introduce fantastic subjects more to widen the range of adventure and acumen than through any imaginative or introspective urge. Both genres are to different degrees controlled by the laws of story telling, which operate more prominently – more crudely, perhaps – in folktales than in myths. In practice … the two often overlap, and that argues for keeping ‘myth’ and ‘mythology’ as inclusive terms, both for myths in the more special sense and for folktales.”

Oliver we still admit the Iliad is attributed to Homer but nobody would state categorically that that is the fact. We will never know who really wrote the Iliad unless we find cross references. The Bible (both old and new testaments) are a different story as for most of the authors are very well known. We also have the history of the Bibles evolution and can pin point when God was invented, what people believed before hand. The Bible is written as if it is existed in a vacuum but unfortunately for the cult of Judaism and spin off hybrids such as Christianity and Islam and their assertions is they are a product of two backwater states amongst superpowers that kept records and existed long before god. There is no question that the Bible is fiction the Bible is most certainly fiction.

Boxgum Christians in this thread and everywhere do not understand what fact or reality is. Christianity and its entire phantasmagoria are occult superstition. It is far too absurd to expect normal people to believe in such nonsense as Jesus and God. The fact is they are myth. Quoting the Bible is akin to quoting Harry Potter, it means nothing outside of those who indulge in the dungeons and dragons game of Harry Potter. Christians here and elsewhere prove their complete disrespect for everybody when they make their offensive, arrogant and childish Christian beliefs public.

Boxgum believe what you want, Indulge in the childish game playing that religion is but keep it to yourself. Your superstition is your problem not the worlds.

Oliver Religion on the factual level is based on deceit and manipulation. On the psychological level religion is based on superstition and immaturity. For instance the misogynistic nature of most religion especially monotheism where by the spiritual mind is that of emotional immaturity as to not be capable to see the factual existence of a female but woman is a not to be trusted parody of a sinful being. This is Christians cant see that their beliefs are just as ridiculous as any other religious beliefs.

Wells,

Thanks for your reply. Suspect we have read the same or similar sources have drawn like conclusions.

My last post was not so much about Homer (as an author). If we DO have have documents of Pilate's trials, and there is nothing there, then, it is GAME, SET AND RUBBER. If we have a huge volume of general documentation from the period, BUT, NOT TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS, then, we have only a "good reason" to believe in the non-existence of a historical Jesus (or whomever).

You see Pilate at the time had had a history of massacres in his past and in his career was in a "be on your best behaviour" phase. The Hedrodians were Roman puppets not genealogically endorsed leaders. Moreover, IF there was a Palm Sunday incident like, with crowds, Pilate would likely to have acted to avert a roit. Thinking of his own political neck, if he had to use force. A postulate that would have to be disguarded, IF actual diaries do not attest you it. If the diaries do not it exist, the postulate may be tentatively, in my case, as a degrared heuristic.

Pilot, was not a very significant figure. Today's equivalent. Hmmm. Oliver North. Jesus, or, whomever, if he existed as some kind of antagonist against the Hedodrodians. Hmmm. Monica Lewinski... A nobody in the frame of a historical person.

Religionist fabrications aside, I think there is value in knowing how religionism works, the archeticture of Gods, and knowing, if some characters are invented or lived, but with fallacious accretions affixed.

Boxgum and Sells,

You need to learn more understanding of your fellow human. Humanists don't burn people at the stake, for disagreeing with them.

Sells,

Did God the Father, beget God the Son? Is murder/self-murder wrong? Is suicide sinful? Is it wrong to commit suicide, as a gesture of atonement?

Even, if one were born without "original" sin and lived a perfect life, but, next, sets oneself's with special sin, as one last sinful act, would that action dirty the slate?

Also, please answer my earlier question.

O.