Where are the writings about King Arthur by people who were alive at the same time he was supposedly alive? Your comparison is bad because our evidence for Jesus existing is quite different (and better) than our evidence for the real existence of a King Arthur.
You should broaden your perspective and read books by good scholars about the historical Jesus rather than just crackpot and fringe writers.
This is just an argument from incredulity. Not very satisfying since so many people don't have the same emotional reaction to these claims. Also doesn't have anything to do with existence of Jesus.
Sure, I agree.

Not sure what you're referring to here as I don't think I've made up anything about you.

That's probably because you don't know much about historical/literary analysis.

Your posting makes me wonder if you've actually taken a course in comparative religion. Or if you've just read a few books and are simply pretending to know what's in such a course.

If you have taken a course, may I inquire as to where and when you took it?

All the religions of the world are designed and fabricated except for one??

For someone who wants to "believe" in Jesus but not in the supernatural, there are a couple of books by a guy named Dylan Morrison (not me) with a very novel take on it: Jesus Junkies & Abuse, and Matrix Messiah. Quick reads, read them last night along with Letters from the Earth and Letter to the Earth.

The greatest story ever told does need new and different, and modern, takes in my opinion.

I don't think anyone has responded to the specifics of my "quantum field as god" hypothesis, and how well it fits the standard roles of mythological, or should I say monotheistic gods. When I postulated that, at the poker table no less, the dude said Jehovah created the quantum field. I tilted a little. "Did you get that in the Bible?" I asked him. No comment. Presupp utter indoctrination, imo. No matter what comes up with them the answer is the magic Jesus, and I think it insults science and reason.

Another guy, very oddly, synchronistically really, had made a prop bet at the table just then as to how many atheists were at the table. He set the O/U at 4 1/2. There I sit right next to him, the bet came down to me and he was sure I was conventional religion as I was an older guy at the table. Had never met him or played with him ... well maybe a couple times several years ago. Impressive PLO player, one of the very best, I suspect.

I had just submitted my book for proofing that morning! That's the synch. When I gave him my opinion, which I thought obviously put the bet under ... I"m no classical theist ... but he said my quantum field "god" qualified as theist, not atheist. I'm selling on that one. "God" is only a metaphor in those usages, fairly obviously, as in Einstein's "dice" quote, and Hawking's uses.

Twain said it best perhaps (I think in Letters from the Earth): "Man has the reason faculty, but never uses it on matters of religion." He's being sarcastic, but there is a point there.

IMHO a lot of people nowadays fail to grasp that religion and science are two different pursuits. The Bible was not meant to be a scientific text, and no scientific text will help much with the questions that religions attempt to answer. Many don't seem to understand that the two are are not inherently incompatible either. As Einstein said, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

But it was clear what he meant, i.e. not "supernatural." His "religion" was of the cosmos, not of myth. And the whole "two different pursuits" thing is just a concession, "We know this doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so we are taking it out of the whole field of reality that everything else is in." It's special pleading of an absolute nature.

.

What questions is the Bible trying to answer?

I'm knocking my head against the wall, the reality of the Twain quote is why. I realize this and it really isn't my bag at all to knock people's religion. I just tilted on the thing of synthesizing ideas from hundreds of sources in attempting to postulate about the nature of things, and the "Jesus did it" attitude just isn't any different than Zeus did it, or Atlas did it.

There is a sense in which that kind of stubborn "faith" is anti-faith. Clinging to dogma is about closemindedness and fear, not about faith. And it totally flies in the face of wonder or fascination. Many, many fascinating hypotheses about ... about the Great Mystery, but reducing them all to a superstition from 2000 years ago, the Magic Jesus, just undercuts it all. So I tilted.

Faith is a sacrificing of awareness, a subversion of consciousness ... and as such not any kind of virtue but a vice. "I have faith that Ra created the quantum field. The end!"

That's not a great story. But the universe is.

I guess the Bible is trying to answer what mankind's place in the universe is ... nope can't say universe they knew nothing of the cosmos thinking heaven was a few miles up ... so is trying to answer man's reason for being, how he should live, etc.

Adherents seem to use it to answer pretty much everything. Where did the quantum field come from? Where did 200 billion galaxies come from? Easy: the Jesus Myth. They had it right 2000 years ago. Like they did for medicine, physics, chemistry, astronomy ...

I haven’t made a lifelong study of religion like yourself. Im sure you have good answers to your own question. I’m just a poker enthusiast and religion hobbyist who occasionally throws out opinions on a forum board . Anyway off the top of my head some questions that any religion, not just the Bible, seeks to answer for us:
1. Does our life have a higher purpose than just subsistence?
2. How did we all get here and why?
3. How can I live my life meaningfully?
4. Can we bind ourselves to a special ,powerful, and beneficial force in the universe?
5. How should we humans treat each other including strangers, parents, children, spouse?
6. Why do bad things happen to those we love?
7. How should I feel about death, grief, suffering?
8. Is there a reliable order to the universe that is beneficial for us?
9. Are we responsible for our actions?
10. Is life just?
11. Is human life worth living?
12. Do we each have a conscience, and should we follow it?
13. How should we deal with feelings of guilt?
14. How do I achieve a feeling of well-being?
15. Does any part of our essence persist after body death?
16. Can we reach a state of eternal peace and joy?
17. What is the future of humankind’s existence?
18. How should we treat animals?
19. Are we more than just another animal on earth?
20. Why do we uniquely have an higher-order intellect and thoughtfulnesss far beyond ordinary animals?

Math and quantum physics won't help much here.

Amusingly, "the Jesus Myth" is a broadly rejected claim that is rejected by serious academics. But from the context of your statement, I'm not even sure if you know what you're saying here.

"The Jesus Myth" doesn't mean he never existed. I've already been clear that we can mythologize about actual or fictional characters. For instance, The Third Jesus is about the first Jesus (the man), the second Jesus (the mythologizing about his life), the third Jesus (yourself as the reader). It's a good line.

I'm recommending Matrix Messiah, by Dylan Thomas. He points up how Jesus can actually be a very inspirational character with no supernaturalism involved ... and I agree with him.

Dylan Morrison, not Dylan Thomas ... both poets.

This claim only functions to continue my amusement. It really just demonstrates the level of ignorance you're working from. It's great how you continue to deny reality. It's just funnier that way.

"The Jesus Myth" (also the "Christ Myth Theory") is precisely the claim of the ahistoricity of Jesus as a person.

You've got some reading to do. See if you can be non-dogmatic and hold two thoughts in your mind at once ... even when it doesn't help your point. Mythologizing real people is a thing, as is creating from whole cloth ... and that doesn't change for magic Jesus and the dogma crew.

I don't reject that mythologizing a real person is a thing.

I'm just saying that there is a literal thing called "The Jesus Myth" that has been around in its current incarnation for decades, which gained generalized popularity through a book literally titled "The Jesus Myth" written in the late 90s, and is the theory that Jesus is an ahistorical figure.

So when you say "The Jesus Myth" (and *even* put it in quotes) to say that "The Jesus Myth" doesn't mean he never existed... well... it's mostly displaying that you're either intellectually dishonest or you're completely ignorant of what you're talking about. But I'll give you a chance: Tell me what "reading" you think I have to do. Show me some actual literary examples of people talking about "The Jesus Myth" that doesn't challenge the historicity of Jesus as a person (that is, the existence of a historical figure). And I don't mean some random blog. Show me some actual literature.

Aside from this, mythologizing a person as a historical-literal phenomenon does not follow the pattern of the gospels. That is, there is too short of a time between the person and the writings for mythologizing to have adequately taken root, and the writings are too specific to be considered mythologizing.

You stand corrected because in the very same post the titles of books were italicized, and the reference to the principle of "The Jesus Myth" was put in quotes ... exactly like the rules of grammar dictate. Raise your game up some. You concluded that I have no idea what I'm talking about because you had no idea what you were talking about.

Many of our presidents have been mythologized by the time they got to the White House. You can't just proclaim that there wasn't time to mythologize. It happens to frickin' Zion Williamson before he's 20. It happened to Lloyd Daniels before he was 20. Countless others. And in an era when everything was word of mouth, no verification, stories abounded about all kinds of magic men miracle workers.

I've listed five or so books on here. There are 400 in my bibliography, and damn few of them say, "Yeah, he was magic." Dudes turning water into wine is magic, dudes walking on water is magic, dudes raising people from the dead is magic, etc. etc. etc. Magic/miracles are sales gimmicks for recruitment of followers in ancient times geared toward a superstitious mindset. They copied/called all the fashionable miracles of the time, in stories, and raised them a resurrection. Of course with massively offensive sacrifice. I want to puke when I see people using the torture of another for their personal glee and streets of gold trip. Goodness is not purchased via such things. That's a very, very magical and easy form of virtue. "I believe. I'm going to heaven and you are tortured forever." That kind of bullcrap is not where virtue comes from.

Putting it in quotes implies a specific referential claim. Not to the book, but the to particular movement/theory being cited.

*Yawn* You really do suck at this game.

Indeed. You might be the only one who has a clue what you're talking about because what you're talking about goes against secular academic scholarship of historical literary analysis. But you're free to make up crap all you want, and cite non-mainstream literature as if anyone actually cares.

LOL -- 400 in *your* bibliography? Did you author something as well? I might guess you meant "library" but I'm doubtful you have one and that it would be that substantial.

You have a different sense of "myth" than what is usually understood in the literature. There's a huge gap between a "myth" and factually incorrect information.

Why don't you state what you think a "myth" is. It may help you to think about the distinction between "myth" and "legend."

This is factually inaccurate on many levels. This falls into the same category of things like everyone in the past was stupid and had no ability to think abstractly. It's basically just ignorant and lazy reasoning.

This is one of the biggest "wows" of my life. When we don't hold ourselves to reality testing on the most critical aspect of life, anything can come out of our mouths. I know there is a substantial element of "Just deny, divert, apologize, avoid, lie ... anything to try to justify the dogma" out there... but I didn't suspect many of them were poker players. Doesn't seem to go together. Then again maybe you aren't. Doesn't matter.

Are you a Christian?