Christ Mythicists

[AmI2Hvy4Ya]

Now keep in mind that I am still new here so I’m not aware if there are any Christ mythicists on TWeb. Maybe if you're a Christ mythicist you could post here and we could talk?

[technomage]

I don't think there are too many "Christ Mythicists" here. Maybe a couple.

I, on the other hand, view Jesus as a historical person whose life story became "mythologized" before the Gospels were written down. Would that count?

[lao tzu]

John Powell is a "mythicist." Most of the rest of us skeptics are the more familiar type, absent the caution quotes. Water into wine is a myth, almost certainly untrue. Walking on water is a myth, almost certainly untrue. Resurrection from the dead is a myth, almost certainly untrue.

But so is the sermon on the mount a myth, albeit one I'm willing to concede is likely based on an actual event in the lifetime of an itinerant preacher of the first century CE.

As ever, Jesse

[shunyadragon]

I don't think there are too many "Christ Mythicists" here. Maybe a couple.

I, on the other hand, view Jesus as a historical person whose life story became "mythologized" before the Gospels were written down. Would that count?

Yes, this would be a Christ Mythicist, because today it is overwhelmingly accepted that there were at least several if not many messianic Jewish rebels during the period that the Biblical Jesus Christ lived. The 'Christ Mythicist' would be one who claims that the the Jesus Christ of the Bible is a mythologized person based on one of these messianic rebels. Oddly enough some Christian scholars consider Christ to be mythologized to lesser extent. Many if not all atheists, agnostics and other none believers would be Christ mythicists.

Historical evidence supports the existence of a messianic rebel with a Hebrew name similar to whom we call Jesus Christ. He was convicted under Roman law for treason claiming to be King of the Jews against Rome under the authority of Pontius Pilot and cruxified. The traditional Christian belief based on the NT would be the religious claim concerning the belief in a Messiah called Jesus Christ in English.

My view is different, because I acknowledge the spiritual station of Jesus Christ as a Jewish Messiah in the Jewish Messianic tradition of the order of Melchezidek. I accept the Trinity as the spiritual representation of the relationship between God and Creation and not the literal physical traditional Christian theology belief, which is to a certain extent mythologized and Romanized in believing in an absolute physical Trinitarian theology.

[AmI2Hvy4Ya]

John Powell is a "mythicist." Most of the rest of us skeptics are the more familiar type, absent the caution quotes. Water into wine is a myth, almost certainly untrue. Walking on water is a myth, almost certainly untrue. Resurrection from the dead is a myth, almost certainly untrue.

But so is the sermon on the mount a myth, albeit one I'm willing to concede is likely based on an actual event in the lifetime of an itinerant preacher of the first century CE.

Sorry, I was refering to the Christian copycat thesis. Overall, I want to see who doubts the "historical Jesus" and why. I want to understand why they reject over ten secular sources that give documentary and commentary evidence for Jesus' existence.

[element771]

Powell is a mythicist?

Is it because the Bible didn't use proper grammar and the correct word choices that he thought it should?

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, I was refering to the Christian copycat thesis. Overall, I want to see who doubts the "historical Jesus" and why. I want to understand why they reject over ten secular sources that give documentary and commentary evidence for Jesus' existence.

Acknowledging a historical person with a Jewish name similar to the English version Jesus Christ claiming to be a Jewish Messiah as the secular sources report, somewhat later, is different from the traditional claims of Christianity. These secular source do not support the Christian theological claims.

[lao tzu]

Sorry, I was refering to the Christian copycat thesis. Overall, I want to see who doubts the "historical Jesus" and why. I want to understand why they reject over ten secular sources that give documentary and commentary evidence for Jesus' existence.

Greetings, Hvy, and welcome to TWeb!

I'm afraid you won't find any of those. "Copycat-ists," as far as I can tell, are likewise mythical, and almost certainly nonexistent. Copycat-ism is a useful creation in support of the hyperbolic arguments of our resident outhouse apologist., but doesn't seem to exist outside of his spittle-soaked imagination. "Myth," "riposte," and "syncretism" are real words with established meanings that are unlikely to be changed in response to the needs of one Internet-enabled librarian.

Now, that said, which historical Jesus are you referencing? The water-walker? I doubt his existence. Does that qualify? A real issue with these discussions about the existence of gods and demi-gods — or for christianity we might stretch the rules of arithmetic to include doubled and trebled yet singular gods — is determining exactly which god the adherent is defending. Given five "historical" attestations of a deity even within the same text, written by an individual author, there are already thirty-one possible gods counting only those for which at least one of these attestations is literally true, and notably taking off the table any for which the attestations are only true in part. The inclusion of these latter rapidly takes the number of conceivable deities beyond the bounds of coherent dialogue.

Of the stories attributed to the Jesus of the new testament, I imagine some are entirely fictional, some are based loosely or more firmly on actual incidents, and of these, multiple individuals would likely be found at the inception of the separate mythical traditions if it were possible to definitively track them down.

Beyond the simplistic questions of "truth" behind these traditions, "truth" that cannot be reasonably established, there are far more interesting questions for some of us. That is, for example, even if we cannot establish an individual flood lying behind the epics of Ziusudra, Atra-hasis, Gilgamesh, and Noah we can still look at the tales themselves, comparing, contrasting and searching for a chain of syncretic assimilation. At minimum we can be quite sure these tales themselves exist, and that they have had their impacts on both ancient and modern societies. Even if Jesus never existed, the myth of his existence certainly does, and represents a fruitful area for study in the humanities. However, if one begins by redefining myth away from its natural usage, such a study is bound to founder on the shoals of this shallow perspective.

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

Powell is a mythicist?

Is it because the Bible didn't use proper grammar and the correct word choices that he thought it should?

No.

</Powell emulator>

[Seasanctuary]

Overall, I want to see who doubts the "historical Jesus" and why. I want to understand why they reject over ten secular sources that give documentary and commentary evidence for Jesus' existence.

All secular evidence is extremely poor. There is simply no way to justify being confident that any of it is anything more than evidence for the existence of Christians decades after Jesus' time.

The reason most Atheists do believe there was a historical Jesus is the nature of the Christian stories. I recommend Jesus: An Historians Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant for the basic principle and some -- perhaps overzealous -- applications. It goes like this: elements of the Gospels which are not likely 'fixes' for other problems in themselves and which are unlikely to have been desirable for the late first century Church to make up, are more likely to be true.

For example:

* The Crucifixion in itself. Note: putting the crucifixion in this category requires the admission that the Jewish Scriptures did not predict it. Otherwise it would be expected.

* Women playing a very large role in the initial reports of his appearance.

* Jesus' whole 'apocalypse next week so prepare spiritually' message.

Really, that might be about it.

[GakuseiDon]

Now keep in mind that I am still new here so I’m not aware if there are any Christ mythicists on TWeb. Maybe if you're a Christ mythicist you could post here and we could talk?

You might have better luck finding mythicists on these threads:
Internet Infidels:
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=60

Truthbeknown (warning: hardcore "copycat" mythicists!)
http://forums.truthbeknown.com/index.php

[AmI2Hvy4Ya]

Truthbeknown (warning: hardcore "copycat" mythicists!)
http://forums.truthbeknown.com/index.php

*facepalm*

Acharya S...

[mig_killer2]

I don't think there are too many "Christ Mythicists" here. Maybe a couple.

I, on the other hand, view Jesus as a historical person whose life story became "mythologized" before the Gospels were written down. Would that count?

the problem here is that the disciples proclaimed the resurrection right from the beginning.

though I wonder what Gregory Boyd and Paul eddy will have to say on that.

[mig_killer2]

*facepalm*

Acharya S...

after a quick look through the forums I have to say *headdesk*

SO THAT'S WHERE JOHN ARMSTRONG HANGS OUT!

[shunyadragon]

the problem here is that the disciples proclaimed the resurrection right from the beginning.

though I wonder what Gregory Boyd and Paul eddy will have to say on that.

There is no record of this claim 'right from the beginning.'