Greg, easy to answer.
The Logos is not a 'historical' figure in any objective sense, except that of the metaphor of a revealed religion - it has as much reality, to me, as Zeus - or, even better, Mithras. Paul may have believed in a historical reality, although that isn't precisely how he speaks: but so did Mithraists (? whatever).
Yes, I have read the Bible. All of it, except for a couple of really dull books which described the building of (I presume) the Temple, at interminable length... The Odyssey is a far better story, or the life of Heracles, or the Aeneid, or the Elder Eddas. So? They're all myths; even if some touch on history at some times, they're myths - they are imaginary depictions, fables, stories of incredible heroes in near-forgotten pasts.
John was the last, most unreliable (regarding reality) and most 'after-the-fact' of the Synoptic gospels. Quoting it as, I presume, some kind of proof of your case is pointless.
home.inu.net and see #14
If you won't accept the gospel accounts because of a supposed pro-Christian bias
ROFLMAO, a supposed pro-Christian bias in the Christian Gospels... please, please, are you serious?? LOL.
I think the Pope has a slight Catholic bias, too. And, well, what might I believe about bears?
why is it that you accept the work of people who clearly have an anti-Christian/supernatural bias
Because they don't ask me to believe the impossible. If I want to hear stories of walking dead, miracles and demons, I'll watch Buffy. I don't believe that's real, either.
Human is human. We don't have the power to walk on water, raise the dead at a distance or turn water into wine, and there are no demons to cast out of men into herds of pigs. Not then, not now.
So I believe what makes sense, what follows natural logic, not the book of myths of any ancient cult with its gods and heroes and wonders, no matter how enjoyable those stories are.
So sorry. |
