Quake reveals day of Jesus' crucifixion, researchers believe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^
Many DCUM posters do not respond to main points but go off on tangents … sigh …

I don’t understand how dating the earthquake pinpoints the date of death. Doesn’t that assume that the accounts of an earthquake happening at that exact moment are accurate?

No, the ancient seismometers are very reliable.

That's not the part I'm questioning. What I'm saying is (1) even if we accept that this earthquake happened on this day, what is (2) the proof that Jesus was crucified on the same day/at the same moment as the earthquake? In order to accept #2, we have to believe that (a) the onlookers are recalling everything exactly as it happened and (b) the story, as handed down, hasn't changed. There is no objective proof of (a) or (b) (I understand that people of faith don't need objective proof, I'm talking about whether pinpointing the date of an earthquake = objective proof of the date and time of the crucifixion).

people wrote accounts of it shortly afterward.


if someone wrote about WWII 30 years afterwards for example, particularly someone who lived during WWII, isn't that still an account?

Sure, it’s an account but I wouldn’t assume they remember it exactly, and if hundreds of years later I’m reading someone’s retelling of what they heard from the person who shared the WWII story, I’m going to be even less inclined to think it’s the exact truth. A million eyewitness studies have shown how faulty people’s memories are.

At least for WWII, we have newspaper nd newsreel accounts. More than you can say about Jesus's time.

[Anonymous]

Let’s consider a few people who never to have their existence or historicity doubted by atheists and other anti-Christian skeptics.

Plato. Unlike Jesus, he wrote some things. None of these works are strictly autobiographical. The best biographical source for Plato comes from Diogenes Laërtius, in his Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, a work written over five hundred years after Plato’s death. The oldest extant copy of this dates from the late eleventh century.

Julius Caesar. Two of the most important historical documents telling us about his life come from Suetonius and Plutarch, both of which were written more than one hundred years after his death. But the extant copies possessed today are even farther—much farther—removed from Caesar’s death in 44 B.C.

The great Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.). Historians get all their information about Alexander beginning in the first century B.C. The most valuable of these is (once again) Plutarch’s Lives. The bulk of our information on Alexander comes from Plutarch. But this work was written in the first century, almost four centuries after Alexander. Thus, the earliest source for Alexander used by modern historians is more than 260 years after his death and the most reliable source is more than 370 years removed.

It’s also agreed that the four Gospels were written within one hundred years of Christ’s death. The Gospel of St. Mark is generally dated to within forty years of the Crucifixion, with St. Matthew and St. Luke not long after. The Gospel of St. John is usually dated to around A.D. 100. Several of St. Paul’s letters—even more impressively—are often dated earlier than St. Mark’s gospel; and within these, at least one recorded creed of the early Christians has been traced back to within five years of Christ’s death (see 1 Cor. 15:3-4). The extremely early dating of this creed is incredibly significant because it is, first, recorded well within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses who could correct and critique the creed if necessary (written as a credal formula, it was apparently already a core profession of Christian doctrine), and second, because it provides direct evidence of early belief in the resurrection of Jesus:

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures . . .

In comparison with the other major figures of antiquity, the historical reliability of the New Testament based on the “fact-to-record” criterion—and in comparison to other important historical works of the ancient world—holds up as impressive and well supported. (Nor is the New Testament the only historical evidence of Jesus’ existence—not by a long shot.)

[Anonymous]

No serious historian doubts that Tiberius Caesar was the second emperor of the Roman Empire, ruling for 23 years, spanning the period of 14 A.D. to 37 A.D., after succeeding his stepfather, Caesar Augustus.

Dr. Sean McDowell of Biola University notes that what is known about Tiberius comes primarily from four secular sources, Tacitus, Seutonius, Velleius Paterculus, and Cassius Dio.

These four conflict with each other on major points about the life and acts of Tiberius, and they spanned several centuries. Nevertheless, historians agree that there was in fact an individual named Tiberius who was the emperor during that time period.

“This is exactly what we would expect for a person of [Tiberius’] influence and stature. Yet how does this compare to the sources for Jesus,” McDowell asks.

“Remember, unlike Tiberius, Jesus had no political position, military power, or governmental authority. He was an itinerant preacher who was largely rejected by his own people. His public ministry was 2-3 years long and he only traveled within Judea,” McDowell continues.

In fact, the evidence for Jesus includes the four Gospels, each written between three and seven decades after His death. There were many individuals still alive during that period who claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus or to have heard Him speak before His death.

“Remember, unlike Tiberius, Jesus had no political position, military power, or governmental authority. He was an itinerant preacher who was largely rejected by his own people.”
There are also the seven New Testament letters written by Paul, who claimed to have seen and talked with the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus, and the epistles of Peter and James, who both knew Jesus.

Plus, there are secular sources that reference Jesus, including the Jewish historian Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonius and others.

Given their comparative positions, where they were born and resided, and how long they were at the height of their lives, one would likely expect far more contemporary or near-contemporary evidence for the emperor than for the itinerant preacher.

https://www.hillfaith.org/history/theres-more-historical-evidence-for-jesus-than-for-tiberius-caesar/

[Anonymous]

All of those ancient dudes probably existed too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^^
Many DCUM posters do not respond to main points but go off on tangents … sigh …

I don’t understand how dating the earthquake pinpoints the date of death. Doesn’t that assume that the accounts of an earthquake happening at that exact moment are accurate?

No, the ancient seismometers are very reliable.

That's not the part I'm questioning. What I'm saying is (1) even if we accept that this earthquake happened on this day, what is (2) the proof that Jesus was crucified on the same day/at the same moment as the earthquake? In order to accept #2, we have to believe that (a) the onlookers are recalling everything exactly as it happened and (b) the story, as handed down, hasn't changed. There is no objective proof of (a) or (b) (I understand that people of faith don't need objective proof, I'm talking about whether pinpointing the date of an earthquake = objective proof of the date and time of the crucifixion).

You only believe science that supports your beliefs?

Do you mean “beliefs” in facts and evidence?

Like the facts and evidence surrounding the assassination of John F Kennedy? Which was caught on film, witnessed by hundreds of people, and still nobody knows exactly what happened?

No one claimed that science always explains everything. From the physical evidence, we can determine that JFK was shot.

In this case, the only thing that science tells us is that there was likely seismic activity in Ein Gedi between the years 26 and 36. That’s it. It doesn’t say anything beyond that.

That’s untrue. People should read the link and decide for themselves.

What other “science” is included on this article?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of those ancient dudes probably existed too.

Who denies those ancient dudes? Do you know any scholar, historian, or professor who denies any of them actually existed? Where are you getting probably from? Is there question any of those men named in the articles existed?

Do you personally deny any of them existed? What do you believe takes the historical certainty of these men existing at 100% in the historical, cultural, and academic fields down to probably for you?

Nobody ever explains why they doubt the historical existence of these people. Your education and critical thinking skills are superior? You have historical data that nobody else knows about?

If you want to say these men probably existed and go against the entire academic world, the entire world of ancient history- what makes you say that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of those ancient dudes probably existed too.

Who denies those ancient dudes? Do you know any scholar, historian, or professor who denies any of them actually existed? Where are you getting probably from? Is there question any of those men named in the articles existed?

Do you personally deny any of them existed? What do you believe takes the historical certainty of these men existing at 100% in the historical, cultural, and academic fields down to probably for you?

Nobody ever explains why they doubt the historical existence of these people. Your education and critical thinking skills are superior? You have historical data that nobody else knows about?

If you want to say these men probably existed and go against the entire academic world, the entire world of ancient history- what makes you say that?

No, I don’t deny they existed. In fact, I said they probably existed. It’s just the nature of ancient history. Without physical evidence, it’s just someone’s interpretation of events. People are fallible.

As that Barbour dude said:
History is not objective; it is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of those ancient dudes probably existed too.

Who denies those ancient dudes? Do you know any scholar, historian, or professor who denies any of them actually existed? Where are you getting probably from? Is there question any of those men named in the articles existed?

Do you personally deny any of them existed? What do you believe takes the historical certainty of these men existing at 100% in the historical, cultural, and academic fields down to probably for you?

Nobody ever explains why they doubt the historical existence of these people. Your education and critical thinking skills are superior? You have historical data that nobody else knows about?

If you want to say these men probably existed and go against the entire academic world, the entire world of ancient history- what makes you say that?

No, I don’t deny they existed. In fact, I said they probably existed. It’s just the nature of ancient history. Without physical evidence, it’s just someone’s interpretation of events. People are fallible.

As that Barbour dude said:
History is not objective; it is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement.

Nobody says probably but you. You aren’t a historian, an academic, or a scholar? What is your educational background and experience to judge the historicity of any person? It really matters. It matters you have evidence to support your probably. Randos who just contribute doubt about the work and research of scholars don’t count at all. You are basically a conspiracy theorist.

Socrates: We don’t have coins minted in his name or other epigraphy testifying to his existence. We have no primary evidence for him. (By primary evidence I mean evidence that is physically contemporary with him.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s consider a few people who never to have their existence or historicity doubted by atheists and other anti-Christian skeptics.

Plato. Unlike Jesus, he wrote some things. None of these works are strictly autobiographical. The best biographical source for Plato comes from Diogenes Laërtius, in his Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, a work written over five hundred years after Plato’s death. The oldest extant copy of this dates from the late eleventh century.

Julius Caesar. Two of the most important historical documents telling us about his life come from Suetonius and Plutarch, both of which were written more than one hundred years after his death. But the extant copies possessed today are even farther—much farther—removed from Caesar’s death in 44 B.C.

The great Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.). Historians get all their information about Alexander beginning in the first century B.C. The most valuable of these is (once again) Plutarch’s Lives. The bulk of our information on Alexander comes from Plutarch. But this work was written in the first century, almost four centuries after Alexander. Thus, the earliest source for Alexander used by modern historians is more than 260 years after his death and the most reliable source is more than 370 years removed.

It’s also agreed that the four Gospels were written within one hundred years of Christ’s death. The Gospel of St. Mark is generally dated to within forty years of the Crucifixion, with St. Matthew and St. Luke not long after. The Gospel of St. John is usually dated to around A.D. 100. Several of St. Paul’s letters—even more impressively—are often dated earlier than St. Mark’s gospel; and within these, at least one recorded creed of the early Christians has been traced back to within five years of Christ’s death (see 1 Cor. 15:3-4). The extremely early dating of this creed is incredibly significant because it is, first, recorded well within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses who could correct and critique the creed if necessary (written as a credal formula, it was apparently already a core profession of Christian doctrine), and second, because it provides direct evidence of early belief in the resurrection of Jesus:

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures . . .

In comparison with the other major figures of antiquity, the historical reliability of the New Testament based on the “fact-to-record” criterion—and in comparison to other important historical works of the ancient world—holds up as impressive and well supported. (Nor is the New Testament the only historical evidence of Jesus’ existence—not by a long shot.)

I think that most people, atheist or not, Jesus the man existed. It’s the son of god bit that has some doubters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s consider a few people who never to have their existence or historicity doubted by atheists and other anti-Christian skeptics.

Plato. Unlike Jesus, he wrote some things. None of these works are strictly autobiographical. The best biographical source for Plato comes from Diogenes Laërtius, in his Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, a work written over five hundred years after Plato’s death. The oldest extant copy of this dates from the late eleventh century.

Julius Caesar. Two of the most important historical documents telling us about his life come from Suetonius and Plutarch, both of which were written more than one hundred years after his death. But the extant copies possessed today are even farther—much farther—removed from Caesar’s death in 44 B.C.

The great Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.). Historians get all their information about Alexander beginning in the first century B.C. The most valuable of these is (once again) Plutarch’s Lives. The bulk of our information on Alexander comes from Plutarch. But this work was written in the first century, almost four centuries after Alexander. Thus, the earliest source for Alexander used by modern historians is more than 260 years after his death and the most reliable source is more than 370 years removed.

It’s also agreed that the four Gospels were written within one hundred years of Christ’s death. The Gospel of St. Mark is generally dated to within forty years of the Crucifixion, with St. Matthew and St. Luke not long after. The Gospel of St. John is usually dated to around A.D. 100. Several of St. Paul’s letters—even more impressively—are often dated earlier than St. Mark’s gospel; and within these, at least one recorded creed of the early Christians has been traced back to within five years of Christ’s death (see 1 Cor. 15:3-4). The extremely early dating of this creed is incredibly significant because it is, first, recorded well within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses who could correct and critique the creed if necessary (written as a credal formula, it was apparently already a core profession of Christian doctrine), and second, because it provides direct evidence of early belief in the resurrection of Jesus:

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures . . .

In comparison with the other major figures of antiquity, the historical reliability of the New Testament based on the “fact-to-record” criterion—and in comparison to other important historical works of the ancient world—holds up as impressive and well supported. (Nor is the New Testament the only historical evidence of Jesus’ existence—not by a long shot.)

I think that most people, atheist or not, Jesus the man existed. It’s the son of god bit that has some doubters.

Those are two different issues. No one is higher education -college/uni professor, publishing scholar, historian, archeologist, etc, denies the historical existence of Jesus Christ, and they are not all religious people. Many are atheists, agnostic, etc.

Nobody has to believe that Jesus was who he said He was. But people who are atheists, anti-theist, and hostile to religion certainly have invested a great deal of time and effort trying to cast doubt on the historicity of Jesus. And I do agree it makes them look foolish. Why not just say the evidence exists that he existed- but I don’t think He was the Son of God? Why try to cast doubt? I think they just don’t want yo admit Jesus existed, and they think if they keep denying it, some people will not believe the evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of those ancient dudes probably existed too.

Who denies those ancient dudes? Do you know any scholar, historian, or professor who denies any of them actually existed? Where are you getting probably from? Is there question any of those men named in the articles existed?

Do you personally deny any of them existed? What do you believe takes the historical certainty of these men existing at 100% in the historical, cultural, and academic fields down to probably for you?

Nobody ever explains why they doubt the historical existence of these people. Your education and critical thinking skills are superior? You have historical data that nobody else knows about?

If you want to say these men probably existed and go against the entire academic world, the entire world of ancient history- what makes you say that?

No, I don’t deny they existed. In fact, I said they probably existed. It’s just the nature of ancient history. Without physical evidence, it’s just someone’s interpretation of events. People are fallible.

As that Barbour dude said:
History is not objective; it is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement.

Nobody says probably but you. You aren’t a historian, an academic, or a scholar? What is your educational background and experience to judge the historicity of any person? It really matters. It matters you have evidence to support your probably. Randos who just contribute doubt about the work and research of scholars don’t count at all. You are basically a conspiracy theorist.

Socrates: We don’t have coins minted in his name or other epigraphy testifying to his existence. We have no primary evidence for him. (By primary evidence I mean evidence that is physically contemporary with him.)

NP. Not sure who is replying to who anymore but it’s clear there was someone questioning the validity of non-secular accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion by questioning the historical validity of the accounts. Another post provided similar examples of historical figures widely accepted as true but with less documented evidence than for Jesus.

Again, PPs have no identified themselves but it seems like one PP denies the accuracy of Jesus accounts by questioning who accepts them as valid and another PP supports evidence of other historical figures with an of course they are real without questioning the accounts or who accepts them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was also articles about a comet either 2 years before or after 0 AD that was thought to be the star of Bethlehem.

Also if you like this stuff read the great flood about archeological discovery into a major flood in the ancient world (when a river reversed course and flooded a major civilized area) that is thought to give rise to the Noah story.

I believe that the Noah flood myth was connected to other Mesopotamian people’s global flood myths so it makes sense it was based on a cataclysmic flood event on the Mesopotamian river at some point.

Scholars believe that the flood myth originated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian Period (c.1880-1595 BCE) and reached Syro-Palestine in the latter half of the 2nd millennium BCE.[20] Extant texts show three distinct versions, the Sumerian Epic of Ziusudra, (the oldest, found in very fragmentary form on a single tablet dating from about 1600 BCE, although the story itself is older), and as episodes in two Akkadian language epics, the Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh.[21] The name of the hero, according to the version concerned, was Ziusudra, Atrahasis, or Utnapishtim, all of which are variations of each other, and it is just possible that an abbreviation of Utnapishtim/Utna'ishtim as "na'ish" was pronounced "Noah" in Palestine.

Numerous parallels make clear that the Genesis flood narrative is dependent on the Mesopotamian epics, and particularly on Gilgamesh, which is thought to date from c.1300-1000 BCE

The Hebrew version is clearly rich in symbolism but I don’t think we need to take it literally to appreciate beautiful lessons from it (eg rainbow as sign of God restoring his covenant of faithful relationship with his people).

It's rude to reference someone's religious text like "the Noah's flood myth." or "the Prophet Mohammed myth" etc. Geez

According to Merriam-Webster, one definition of myth:

-a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

According to Oxford dictionary, one definition of myth:

-a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was also articles about a comet either 2 years before or after 0 AD that was thought to be the star of Bethlehem.

Also if you like this stuff read the great flood about archeological discovery into a major flood in the ancient world (when a river reversed course and flooded a major civilized area) that is thought to give rise to the Noah story.

I believe that the Noah flood myth was connected to other Mesopotamian people’s global flood myths so it makes sense it was based on a cataclysmic flood event on the Mesopotamian river at some point.

Scholars believe that the flood myth originated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian Period (c.1880-1595 BCE) and reached Syro-Palestine in the latter half of the 2nd millennium BCE.[20] Extant texts show three distinct versions, the Sumerian Epic of Ziusudra, (the oldest, found in very fragmentary form on a single tablet dating from about 1600 BCE, although the story itself is older), and as episodes in two Akkadian language epics, the Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh.[21] The name of the hero, according to the version concerned, was Ziusudra, Atrahasis, or Utnapishtim, all of which are variations of each other, and it is just possible that an abbreviation of Utnapishtim/Utna'ishtim as "na'ish" was pronounced "Noah" in Palestine.

Numerous parallels make clear that the Genesis flood narrative is dependent on the Mesopotamian epics, and particularly on Gilgamesh, which is thought to date from c.1300-1000 BCE

The Hebrew version is clearly rich in symbolism but I don’t think we need to take it literally to appreciate beautiful lessons from it (eg rainbow as sign of God restoring his covenant of faithful relationship with his people).

It's rude to reference someone's religious text like "the Noah's flood myth." or "the Prophet Mohammed myth" etc. Geez

Is it rude to refer to the Odin myth? Or the thetans myth? Or Wiccan myths? Or a Native American myths? Or even pagan myths people believe in?

You’ll have to explain to me if it’s not. You’ll have to explain to me the difference. Your statement is essentially that the word myth is not applicable anywhere ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was also articles about a comet either 2 years before or after 0 AD that was thought to be the star of Bethlehem.

Also if you like this stuff read the great flood about archeological discovery into a major flood in the ancient world (when a river reversed course and flooded a major civilized area) that is thought to give rise to the Noah story.

I believe that the Noah flood myth was connected to other Mesopotamian people’s global flood myths so it makes sense it was based on a cataclysmic flood event on the Mesopotamian river at some point.

Scholars believe that the flood myth originated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian Period (c.1880-1595 BCE) and reached Syro-Palestine in the latter half of the 2nd millennium BCE.[20] Extant texts show three distinct versions, the Sumerian Epic of Ziusudra, (the oldest, found in very fragmentary form on a single tablet dating from about 1600 BCE, although the story itself is older), and as episodes in two Akkadian language epics, the Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh.[21] The name of the hero, according to the version concerned, was Ziusudra, Atrahasis, or Utnapishtim, all of which are variations of each other, and it is just possible that an abbreviation of Utnapishtim/Utna'ishtim as "na'ish" was pronounced "Noah" in Palestine.

Numerous parallels make clear that the Genesis flood narrative is dependent on the Mesopotamian epics, and particularly on Gilgamesh, which is thought to date from c.1300-1000 BCE

The Hebrew version is clearly rich in symbolism but I don’t think we need to take it literally to appreciate beautiful lessons from it (eg rainbow as sign of God restoring his covenant of faithful relationship with his people).

It's rude to reference someone's religious text like "the Noah's flood myth." or "the Prophet Mohammed myth" etc. Geez

Is it rude to refer to the Odin myth? Or the thetans myth? Or Wiccan myths? Or a Native American myths? Or even pagan myths people believe in?

You’ll have to explain to me if it’s not. You’ll have to explain to me the difference. Your statement is essentially that the word myth is not applicable anywhere ever.

The term religion defines a system of formally organized beliefs and practices typically centered around the worship of supernatural forces or beings.

Myths are stories that are based on tradition.

I don’t call anyone’s religious beliefs myths.

[Anonymous]

Someone in this forum used to post long, detailed (the details were all made up btw) posts about Jesus being a myth. They said He was some kind of preacher that travelled to India. They had some odd name they called Him. They were extremely sure of that information, and as I am a life-long learner, I decided to try to see what they were posting about.

It was complete garbage. The Jesus “myth” is in contrast to the mainstream scholarly consensus holding that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in 1st-century Roman Judea, and that he was both baptized and crucified.

In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is considered a fringe theory, and finds virtually no support from scholars, to the point of being addressed in footnotes or almost completely ignored due to the obvious weaknesses they espouse. (As I quickly and correctly surmised: it’s garbage.)

Common criticisms against the Christ myth theory include: general lack of expertise or relationship to academic institutions and current scholarship; reliance on arguments from silence, lack of evidence, dismissal or distortion of what sources actually state, questionable methodologies, and outdated or superficial comparisons with mythologies.

According to agnostic scholar Bart D. Ehrman, nearly all scholars who study the early Christian period believe that Jesus did exist, and Ehrman observes that mythicist writings are generally of poor quality because they are usually authored by amateurs and non-scholars who have no academic credentials or have never taught at academic institutions. Maurice Casey, an agnostic scholar of New Testament and early Christianity, stated that the belief among professors that Jesus existed is generally completely certain. According to Casey, the view that Jesus did not exist is "the view of extremists", "demonstrably false" and "professional scholars generally regard it as having been settled in serious scholarship long ago".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

So I guess now the hostile to religion crowd had been begrudgingly forced to accept Jesus existed, their next step is to paint Christianity, the Bible, etc, as myth.

For people who don’t believe in God, they sure spend alot of time thinking about God. Sort of counter-intuitive imo.