Indeed. It's interesting to watch yourself doing precisely the thing that you want to accuse the other of doing.

Very plainly, you are factually incorrect about "the Jesus Myth." This is a known position, a known movement, popularized by a specific book, and you were ignorant of that fact. So you instead went with some interpretation of it as "mythologizing" Jesus.

But then as we started to explore that, it was clear that you were taking a sharply weaker version of the concept of a myth (to the point that it doesn't really fit the word), and you talked about two basketball players who have not actually been mythologized. I even pointed you in a direction to help you clarify your thoughts, but rather than doing so, you shut your brain off and went into blabber mode.

The common distinction between the two comes down to precisely the claim under question. Legends are stories built off of a real person. A myth is not. This is why "The Jesus Myth" is exactly the claim that Jesus is an ahistorical figure.

But please, continue proving yourself to be wrong and ignorant. I don't mind it one bit.

Are you about to engage in an actual ad hominem?

You feel compelled to duck even that question? I would have thought you might have woke up when you realized I handled the titles/italicization versus quotation marks skillfully while you whiffed on it completely ... I thought you might have started to wake up to ideas like when I say bibliography, it means bibliography. And when you just make up what you believe about someone's library, it isn't much different than just making up what you believe about religion. Funny how that works.

So I've asked you if you are a Christian after your totally irresponsible, truth-indifferent post regarding the bibliography ... and you've refused to testify. Impressive.

You apparently have problems reading between the lines, as your response here answers my question precisely.

I welcome you to point to "your" 400 book bibliography. I think you posted three books, none of which have any connection to contemporary scholarship.

As you are aware, but must be forgetting or something, there are different and valid reasons for putting something in quotation marks. Upon review, for you, it is clear that i was not referring to the book (The Jesus Myth). Upon review, for me, the one thing I could have done differently is not capitalize the word "Myth."

But it is clear from the post that it isn't a book title, and was therefore a reference to something else. That something else I had already alluded to with the reference, and later description, of The Third Jesus, which is a treatment of the mythologizing surrounding a real human being.

I would so like to talk about hypotheses on the Great Mystery that do not act like fables account for it. But that isn't very popular with fundamentalists.

Apparently, it has never occurred to you that I was also not referring to the book.

So you're going to hang your hat on Deepak Chopra's writings as to what mythologizing is, and that's your bibliography?

Bravo, indeed.

I do give the Chopra Third Jesus book a strong passing grade. It leans toward a gnostic approach instead of the insufferable fundamentalist one. I wasn't so keen on his You Are the Universe or whatever it was more recently. I've definitely got some mystical parts, but that book just doesn't resonate with any of them.

However, the mythologizing of a man into a god - whether it be Pharaoh, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Dear Leader, Yao - is a real phenomenon and Chopra covers it well in 3rd.

Yes I get that "The Jesus Myth" refers to a school of thought as well a title. I didn't get around to splicing that out. Since I had already spelled out the "three Jesus" idea, it was hardly necessary to do that.

Funny that an "Aaron" fades me now. My favorite player as a boy was Hammerin' Hank ... watched as he chased down Ruth, outrunning Mays in the race. And then in my biblio, much maligned, Elaine Aron shows up with a pure, in my life, "20% stat" direct hit. Let he who has the ears hear a truth.

Alas, now, this Aaron is just an insincere troller of actual ideas ... fundamentalism being, in my view, anti-idea, anti-thought, anti-life. Amen.

Now you're just flat-out lying. Aaron is NOT a fundamentalist by any definition I know of.

I , on the other hand, AM a fundamentalist (in the original sense of the word, which I doubt you know about). But not Aaron.

Bravo.

Let's hear your usage. Are you Church of Christ, by chance?

If I said there was great stuff in the the Bible, and bad stuff -- would you agree? I guess not for most any kind of fundamentalism.

I am a member of a Baptist church.

In the early 20th century a multi-volume work called "The Fundamentals" was published by a group of distinguished Christian scholars, evangelists and pastors. It categorized a number of essential "fundamental" doctrines that the authors believed were distinctly Christian.

People who adhered to the teachings in the books were called "fundamentalists."

This one?

https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-...45617655&psc=1

716 pages of fundamentals, doctrines, dogma ... and their defense. What about a religion that just says: "kindness, respect, brother and sisterhood ... it's not supernatural."

To each his own. I would like to know if that is the book.

That's the book I was talking about.

I give up, what about it? Please don't leave us in suspense for too long.

I haven't read the whole book, but I kinda doubt it.