The Mythicist Position

[Apostatenproud]

One would think many here would find the new mythicist position interesting. Never before has there been such a succinct, clearly explained position for mythicists:


The Mythicist Position:

"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not “real people” but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called “astrotheology.” As a major example of the mythicist position, various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon & Jesus Christ, among other figures, in reality represent mythological characters along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."

- Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html), page 12

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations."
- Dr. Robert Price (http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/reviews/murdock_christ_egypt.htm), Biblical Scholar

"Your scholarship is relentless! The research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."
- Dr. Kenneth L. Feder (http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3033&start=0), Professor of Archaeology

The Mythicist Position - video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKW9sbJ3v2w)

What is a Mythicist? (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicist.html)

The History of Mythicism (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicism.html)

For further explanation see, The Evemerist vs. Mythicist Position (http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2160)

Astrotheology of the Ancients (http://stellarhousepublishing.com/astrotheology.html)

The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/originsofchristianity.pdf)

Jesus as the Sun throughout History (http://stellarhousepublishing.com/jesussunexcerpt.html)

The Gospels: A 2nd Century Composition (http://stellarhousepublishing.com/gospel-dates.html)


Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidence (http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2997)

The New ZEITGEIST Part 1 Sourcebook (2010) (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeistsourcebook.pdf)

[MWM958]

uhhhh does this even deserve a response?
What lao tzu said

[lao tzu]

Naturalism is non-theist only.

[Seasanctuary]

Zeitgeist.
Hah.

[lao tzu]

I was trying not to notice. With any luck, it's a drive-by.

FWIW, I watched Zeitgeist.

I thought it was satire.

If only.

[rationalrevolut]

While I technically take a mythicist position, I'm strongly opposed to several positions common within popular "mythicism", particularly the type of stuff you find in Zeitgeist.

Most specifically I'm opposed to any such claims that the Jesus figure is based on "pagan" gods or religions, it clearly isn't. There are a lot of pagan influences on Christianity, but most of these came after the 4th century when the religion was adopted by the Romans, not at the time of the origin.

I recommend my two main articles on the subject, starting with my analysis of the Gospel of Mark:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/gospel_mark.htm

This is a broader case against the existence of a historical Jesus:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

Also, you can preview the first 15 pages of my book "Jesus a Very Jewish Myth" here, and the rest after that is largely the same as what's in the link above:

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/jesus---a-very-jewish-myth/2079912

I consider the case against historicity to be extremely strong, I just find that the case put forward by 75% of popular mythicists is mostly bunk though, which is quite unfortunate.

[Apostatenproud]

Mod MWM958, I'm no Christian - that's why I'm "Apostatenproud," hell-O.

rationalrevolution contradicts himself repeatedly on his page here, which is rather "Zeitgeist-y":

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth.htm


"The story of Jesus is not a direct copy of any pre-existing myth, but it does incorporate the qualities of many different myths"

Repeatedly on this page, RR makes comparisons between Christianity and Paganism. He basically says the same things Acharya does, but, of course, when SHE says them, he shrieks and wails and pretends he's against them. On this page, he's even defending Dan Brown, who makes very "Zeitgeist-y" claims.


"There are a lot of pagan influences on Christianity, but most of these came after the 4th century"

That's easily proven false - as you have inadvertently done yourself on your own website. Unless you're claiming that the gospel story wasn't created until the 4th century, what you're saying is inaccurate. As concerns the standardly accepted story of Christ, you can say that about the adoption of December 25th, but we're talking about the gospel story itself: The virgin birth, the temptation in the desert, the miraculous healing of the sick, the raising of the dead, the walking on water, the transfiguration on the mount, the godman's own resurrection and the ascension - these are all mythical pre-Christian motifs and they are in the gospel story itself. If the gospels were created in the first or second centuries, it was THEN that they were added. Even Justin Martyr knew that at around 150ce.

There are many, many more aspects of the gospel story itself that we can find in both Pagan mythology and in the Old Testament, used as a BLUEPRINT to write the New. It's really not that hard.


"I just find that the case put forward by 75% of popular mythicists is mostly bunk though, which is quite unfortunate. "

That's odd because I would put rationalrevolution in that category as well.

This guy rationalrevolution is desperate to be recognized as an "expert" meanwhile, he has absolutely no relevant qualifications or credentials whatsoever.

Irrational hate for Acharya (http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1511&start=0)

[Chrs]

Hey,

I'd suggest you stick this in Apologetics. Theists can't post here, so you're not going to get much involvement.

[rationalrevolut]

Mod MWM958, I'm no Christian - that's why I'm "Apostatenproud," hell-O.

rationalrevolution contradicts himself repeatedly on his page here, which is rather "Zeitgeist-y":

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth.htm

Repeatedly on this page, RR makes comparisons between Christianity and Paganism. He basically says the same things Acharya does, but, of course, when SHE says them, he shrieks and wails and pretends he's against them. On this page, he's even defending Dan Brown, who makes very "Zeitgeist-y" claims.

Erm.. dude I've never defended Dan Brown, in fact I wrote a blog post discrediting Dan Brown regarding the Da Vinci Code.


That's easily proven false - as you have inadvertently done yourself on your own website. Unless you're claiming that the gospel story wasn't created until the 4th century, what you're saying is inaccurate. As concerns the standardly accepted story of Christ, you can say that about the adoption of December 25th, but we're talking about the gospel story itself: The virgin birth, the temptation in the desert, the miraculous healing of the sick, the raising of the dead, the walking on water, the transfiguration on the mount, the godman's own resurrection and the ascension - these are all mythical pre-Christian motifs and they are in the gospel story itself. If the gospels were created in the first or second centuries, it was THEN that they were added. Even Justin Martyr knew that at around 150ce.

Perhaps you should just read a little more before you do much attacking... almost all of those are addressed directly in one or both of the links. Firstly, I directly discussed possible influences from the mystery religions, here:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#7

The issue is one of degree. The Jesus story is clearly primarily based on Jewish literary traditions, existing Jewish cults, and the Jewish scriptures. Of course there were crossover influences, but these are dramatically overstated by pretty much 95% of mythicists.

Virgin Birth:
The virgin birth is clearly rooted in the use of a mistranslated passage in the Septuagint. We know for a fact that the word of virgin was used in the Septuagint in Isaiah 7. The narrative in the Gospels is clearly based on Isaiah 7, it directly makes the reference. Not only that, but since this isn't part of the writings of Paul or the Gospel of Mark I wouldn't even consider the "virgin birth" an original part of the Jesus account anyway, the whole point is that the Jesus of Paul was a "heavenly messiah", not born at all...

Healing the sick:
The passages of healing the sick are directly based on the story of Elisha and Elisa in Kings.

Raising the dead:
The story of raising Lazarus is just a late addition by the author of John and not even part of the original set of beliefs.

Walking on water:
The walking on water scene is a literally allusion to Isaiah 43.

Resurrection:
This probably was influenced by the mystery religions, but also has parallels in The Book of Enoch and other 2nd century BCE and 1st century BCE Jewish stories. This was a part of the theology of Paul, and as I say, the Gospel of Mark is based on the theology of Paul.

[Apostatenproud]

I've seen your website before as you always post your crap trying to hi-jack threads just as you are right here. I see no reason whatsoever to waste any more time at your website. You have no formal training, qualifications or credentials; you can't read, write or speak any relevant languages and you are not any kind of authority on anything relevant.

Are you Jewish? You are the only one to pretend that Jesus wasn't based on pagan gods or religions, only Jewish ; and it's been debunked to the point of you being a laughing stock for still making such absurd claims.

You've posted as "Malachi151" at the IIDB forum, "rationalrevolution" at the Dawkins & Harris forums, and "ice cream man" at Secularweb, hi-jacking threads trying to promote and advertise your particular load of crap.


"...Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ... "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories,"2 "...According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact."3

1. Metzger, HLS, 8.

2. Meier, II, 536.

3. Geisler, CA, 320.

- Who Was Jesus? page 259

Start your own thread - I'm not interested in your opinion. I started this thread to discuss the mythicist position. I would think many here would be interested in the new mythicist position. Never before has there been such a succinct, clearly explained position for mythicists.

[lao tzu]

Apse and proud ... are you Acharya S.?

[rationalrevolut]

I've seen your website before as you always post your crap trying to hi-jack threads just as you are right here. I see no reason whatsoever to waste any more time at your website. You have no formal training, qualifications or credentials; you can't read, write or speak any relevant languages and you are not any kind of authority on anything relevant.

Are you Jewish? You are the only one to pretend that Jesus wasn't based on pagan gods or religions, only Jewish ; and it's been debunked to the point of you being a laughing stock for still making such absurd claims.

You've posted as "Malachi151" at the IIDB forum, "rationalrevolution" at the Dawkins & Harris forums, and "ice cream man" at Secularweb, hi-jacking threads trying to promote and advertise your particular load of crap.



Start your own thread - I'm not interested in your opinion. I started this thread to discuss the mythicist position. I would think many here would be interested in the new mythicist position. Never before has there been such a succinct, clearly explained position for mythicists.

Hehe, news to me. I've never seen anyone "discredit" my articles on mythicism. Invariably Acharya S fans-boys always rant and rave, but that's about it. It's the nonsensical positions, based on discredited 19th century fake scholarship, claiming that there are all these parallels between the Jesus story and various pagan stories that have discredited the mythicist position.

I can honestly say that I don't understand the obsession with the whole "pagan parallels" positions. It seems that some people are more vested in the notion of "pagan parallels" than they are in showing that the Jesus never existed.

Oh well...

[Apostatenproud]

Here's a response to historian Dr. Forbes

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'
http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html

Please don't argue via weblink

[Seasanctuary]

Give me a Christian apologist over a raving mythicist any day, except Geisler.