The Romans co-opted many pagan rituals and "Christianized" them. We know that Christmas was one of these. It is the first day following the winter solstice when it becomes possible to observe that the days are getting longer and that the apparent motion of the sun across the sky has once again reversed. For several days on each side of the solstice, there is no perceptible change. Ancient astronomers would determine the date of the solstice by counting the number of days for which apparent motion had stopped and dividing by two. (In like manner, the greatest daily change in the length of night and day occurs at the equinoxes, when the slope of the sinusoidal curve is 45 degrees.)

To my knowledge, we have no surviving Roman records of a census being taken in occupied Jewish territory, nor do we know for certain which Emperor was being referred to in the gospel accounts. But it would not have happened in midwinter.

"The Star of Bethlehem" was probably a comet, and the "wise men" were probably astrologers. But a comet or a star in the sky does not lead you to a particular city, let alone to a particular place in that city, or enable you to find a particular family.

Jesus thus becomes the best-known religious leader but also the one about whom the least is factually known. There are no contemporaneous accounts, and the accounts, all of which are recollections, do not agree.

Good one, sundialsvcs. Decent example of how myth follows the "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" disctum. But the question remains, do you know recognize the difference between Myth and Science? They barely belong in the same sentence.

Personally, I felt a number of languages were spoken. Greek was foremost. Alexander the Great and his successors had made Greek to be the spoken language, hence the Septuagint in 270 BCE. All scriptural quotations in the Greek Scriptures were from the Septuagint. Hebrew was used for (Jewish) Religious matters and as the Jewish native tongue. Then some Samaritan, Syriac, & Aramaic. Aramaic certainly took over after the Jews were ethnically cleansed out of Israel by Hadrian in 136. When you look at Acts 22:2 most of the translations say 'Hebrew,' and the Commentaries also indicate Paul spoke in Hebrew. I am not aware of the quality of those commentaries myself, but presume they are respected. I thought that the spoken language of the early church was Greek. After 70 CE, most of the congregations were in modern-day Greece, Turkey & Syria. There were Christians in Babylon, and Peter's epistles were apparently written there, but even they were in Greek.

I've heard comments that "The real holy books were of course in Aramaic." But archaeology doesn't support it. The scrolls are nearly exclusively in Greek. There are bits of Daniel, Ezra, Esther, & Nehemiah in Aramaic. Even the Romans spoke Greek, with the exception of the 'plebs,' Etruscans and others, who largely spoke Latin.

@enorbet: I think that "science" contains a lot of "myth."

If a conclusion contains any Myth, then by definition it is not Science.

Obviously objective verifiable/falsifiable has zero to do with any one of those but has everything to do with Science. You certainly have the right to your own personal belief but opinion does not qualify and is insufficient at best to make it so.

This post is for anyone interested in Myth but likely especially for OP, sundialsvcs, since I'm betting , if he isn't already aware of this channel. will love the foprmat of this Myth related YouTube channel that uses a variety of scholarly methods and experts in many fields to explore deeply ancient Myth, their currently proposed origins and implications. Since it is mainly a talk channel some may find it a bit dry but the fellow provides proper resources in books, lectures, other channels, etc that can expand any history and myth buff with fascinating follow-ups.

This one is about Homer's Iliad and Odyssey (or is it really Homer?) but do click on the channel link to see what else is offered. It's not as iconic nor compelling and entertaining as Dan Carlin's "Hardcore History" channel (Mr. Carlin is an extremely adept storyteller) but is a fun complement and centers more on myth than Hardcore History.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl8hR6_iaLg

+1 on that! Sadly, as George W. Bush put it, some things are "Too Big to fail."

It seems to me I have fallen guilty of the sin of assumption, assuming that if I voiced my respect for individual spirituality while standing firm against Organized Religion, combined with my strong appreciation of education, research and critical thought that everyone would just conclude that I draw similar lines between Science as an organized and often commercial, even military, field and that of recognition of the individual adherence to the principles of the scientific method as the "sharpest tools in the shed". Each here please accept my sincere apologies for not making that clear despite referring to how tools can be perverted into bad practice just as easily as for the good.

(... and now it seems I must also apologize for run-on sentences )

This is the most important distinction!

Plato made one too: the perfect circle exists in a perfect world of forms; yet all the circles we experience are imperfect.

So too, is there a perfect scientific method, practiced in some other pefect universe; but the commericial military influence on the science that is actually practiced taints its results to criminal extents.

However, the advent of this internet stuff, combined with the security of vpns running on risc-v stacks, has afforded humanity an opportunity to take science back; since purer science could now be crowdfunded and patreoned--I would rather sponser @enorbet in his home lab transparently and publically sharing his results from the sharpest tool in his shed. If science could purge itself from the money race, it could have potential of being a useful tool in the shed.

But as it is, it is just as destructive as it is beneficial: saving life with one hand, and murdering it with the other, while refraining from feeling any guilt about it since guilt is an emotion which might interfere with the bank accounts. Today scientists practice scientific denial of this dark side, while meanwhile brainwashing an entire globe of people to believe that they'll all die if they don't buy scientific "remedies".

Twenty-first century juggernaut science needs to be resisted, not served, because authority has to be checked every step of the way, less it become authoritarian... and twent-first century juggernaut science is bordering authoritarian science: something evil where dissidents are murdered by the health police in quarantined obscurity all in the name of public safety--we've finally evolved beyond gulags and gas chambers.

Unless your principles include the willingness to die rather than ever kill, you (and we) are faced with the age old dilemma of conflict. There are only 2 ways to resolve a conflict - negotiation and violence. The deeper (and often most disturbing and difficult) issue is the one highlighted in the great film, "Apocalypse Now". Do you fight a conflict with gentlemanly morals and risk losing to the "dirty fighter" or do you choose to do whatever it takes to end the conflict in your favor as swiftly as possible? There is no clear answer IMHO. I used to think there was and held myself to "high" standards regardless of how my opponent behaved. Then I grew up and decided to adhere tt honor first but at the first sign of dirty fighting, I'd switch to swift ending no matter what. Eye for an eye, right?

Unfortunately such situations and their subsequent choices tend to become cumulative. I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms but I also know it is unwise to casually conceal carry. If your transporting large sums of money that's a special situation but casual carry will much more often present you with a situation where you will take what seems to be the swift and easy way out and rely on the firearm "just to let 'em know you mean business" and that rarely ends well.

We really can't fault the military for using Science to develop "the bigger stick" no matter how rogueish it may seem. Such efforts protect it's citizens. That does not preclude policing the police when they devolve into bullies. Above even that though, Science is not at fault. It's just efficient even when moral choices gets blurry. As a species we seem to be slowly climbing out of the mire of unrestrained conflict. Things are somewhat better now than they were in the Past and precisely because Science made it easier for people to survive and provide for families. However I suffer no illusions as to how quickly we all can revert when "shit gets thick". Hopefully we manage to equalize enough to be able to outgrow our crude and childish ways.

I think you're avoiding slac-in-the-box's main points in his last paragraph.

For the record, I for one am prepared to die rather than kill. The 'right to bear arms' = 'the right to kill when I decide to.' We see the side effects of that. My convictions and hope have a lot to do with that as JWs are peace-loving people.

A scientists whose facts 100% support his case can rest on the facts. More and more, scientists without 100% of the facts are emboldened to act like Thought Police. Examples are the recent business with Covid vaccinations which had 'scientific' adherents on all sides, and the insistence on atheism in "Science." When the Thought Police come in, science goes out. And nobody can prove there isn't a God.

Money also rules supreme. The ones paying the scientists call the tune. That doesn't lead to human advancement. That leads to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The world is going to be horrible in a few decades.

Hello business_kid

I don't think I'm avoiding anything there. I just disagree at the most fundamental level since I identify any wrongs in Science serving military needs is primarily on the heads of the military. If we need to hold scientists accountable for serving the interests of the military then we have to also hold accountable every footsoldier, deskjockey, teacher and teaching institutions involved as well as any voter, including politicians, who didn't protest defense spending or military base construction, etc. etc. etc.


Due to my upbringing I happen to find that a noble commitment. My Mother worked for an Overseas Friendship Center run by a WWII conscientious objector and her favorite movie at one time was the Gary Cooper in a role as a Civil War era Quaker, "Friendly Persuasion". Due to my experiences after I was on my own, I decided it was possible and right to defend oneself in kind. I, too, consider myself Peace Loving and choose violence only as the last resort. I wouldn't shoot at a trespasser but an armed home invader will have opened the wrong door. They will get a warning but if they don't heed that, the risk is their choice.

First I think you need to understand that to scientists "proofs" only exist in Mathematics. Everything in the real world is on a sliding scale of probabilities and odds. Regarding vaccinations, the actual scientists who did the research and developed them acted in confidence given the highest odds for the most good and it has worked many millions more most certainly would've died had it not been for vaccinations. There is NO insistence on atheism in Science since atheism is by definition not a belief system. Anyone who has come to that singular conclusion does so just like concluding "On Earth, if I jump up, I will fall down, because Gravity" or or concluding there is no credible evidence for the existence of ghosts. Such a conclusion is not an alternative religion. It is quite literally NON religious.

That is certainly hard to argue with since in general it is an obvious truism BUT there are many, many scientists who live like starving artists because the branch of Science they are enthralled by is not viewed as commercial or important to human survival by politicians, financiers, grant givers or the general populace. Furthermore many scientists are simply fat too "head in the clouds" to be concerned with mundane things like politics or money. They're... we are driven by curiosity and the joy of discovery. The spirit that drove Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and many thousands more is still very much alive. Actually I think it is likely just inherent in some.

Perhaps we need to specify exactly what we mean by "myth", because the pure definition accepts four major (six total) possibly meanings or interpretations.
Elsewhere described as Both sets of descriptors presume that myth has little or nothing to do with truth. The value then, lies where it always has: in illustrating values or providing and instructional lesson.

It seems to me that myth has no value of a lesson based upon facts and real history will suffice. Does it have value where that is not the case?

Myth in the sense used by Joseph Campbell is only definition worth discussion, IMO. The rest is just just BS.

That would be a reasonable thing to believe if you do not understand Science. ONLY if you do not understand science!