youkrst wrote:

DWill wrote:What I said was that the literalist vs. mythicist divide is of modern creation and so isn't historical.

well in that first verse

1 John 4 (90-120CE)

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.…

if the guys are saying jesus never came in the flesh then they are obviously not literalists

you said earlier

I haven't seen any good evidence of an anti-literalist or anti historical-Jesus mindset in the period we're talking about.

It's not that I mind it too much myself, but you're drawing your historical argument from the Bible itself, which you've questioned, haven't you, as a reliable source of anything.

You're gonna think me willfully stubborn, but what about the belief that Christ came in the flesh is really literalist, vs the belief that he didn't? It's a difference in doctrine that existed at some time. The in-the-flesh view won out, which is why this writing was chosen to be canonized. Say that the other view had prevailed, though, and become scriptural. Then it would be the literal reading, right?

geo wrote:I think that these things tend to go in circles because the two sides don't come to terms on this one point. If almost everything we know about Jesus comes from myth, does it really matter that much if the man really existed? To me it's a minor quibble and one which will never be answered satisfactorily. But because this point is not clarified, this is where it always gets hung up. or so it seems to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

i think you have a good point there geo. i'm definitely able to relate to what you said there...

Do many in the mythicist camp really believe that Jesus never existed at all?

i think the same way that "God" gets used as "Deist God" and also "theist God" so also "Jesus" gets used as "obscure peasant preacher" and "Son of God" etc so it seems good to me to specify at times.

geo wrote:Also to clarify, I was not criticizing youkrst in any way and I do not agree with Ant's berating. I feel like I've poisoned the well and that was certainly not my intention. I was just throwing my $.02 into the arena, which corrected for inflation comes out to about 1/100 of $.01.

Actually I've learned a lot from youkrst over the years. He obviously knows his stuff. Please continue.

cheers m8, and i you

i get blown all over the map with this stuff sometimes so i appreciate the help clarifying.

DWill wrote:but you're drawing your historical argument from the Bible itself, which you've questioned, haven't you, as a reliable source of anything.

oh, no, it's just that i don't think you can use the bible to say "see this proves jesus is historical" any more than you can say "see this 007 book proves there was a james bond"

but you could certainly use the 007 book to say all sorts of things about ian fleming's style or how the story relates to it's cultural context etc.

youkrst wrote:

DWill wrote:What I said was that the literalist vs. mythicist divide is of modern creation and so isn't historical.

In Christian terminology, docetism (from the Greek δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn (to seem) /dókēsis (apparition, phantom),[1][2] according to Norbert Brox, is defined narrowly as "the doctrine according to which the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and thus above all the human form of Jesus, was altogether mere semblance without any true reality." [3][4] Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion. The word Δοκηταί Dokētaí (illusionists) referring to early groups who denied Jesus' humanity, first occurred in a letter by Bishop Serapion of Antioch (197–203),[5] who discovered the doctrine in the Gospel of Peter, during a pastoral visit to a Christian community using it in Rhosus, and later condemned it as a forgery.[6][7] It appears to have arisen over theological contentions concerning the meaning, figurative or literal, of a sentence from the Gospel of John: "the Word was made Flesh".[8]

Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in 325[9] and is regarded as heretical by the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and many others.[10]

Here's another rundown of docetism. Why would I be interested in showing it?

Docetism, (from Greek dokein, “to seem”), Christian heresy and one of the earliest Christian sectarian doctrines, affirming that Christ did not have a real or natural body during his life on earth but only an apparent or phantom one. Though its incipient forms are alluded to in the New Testament, such as in the Letters of John (e.g., 1 John 4:1–3; 2 John 7), Docetism became more fully developed as an important doctrinal position of Gnosticism, a religious dualist system of belief arising in the 2nd century ad which held that matter was evil and the spirit good and claimed that salvation was attained only through esoteric knowledge, or gnosis. The heresy developed from speculations about the imperfection or essential impurity of matter. More thoroughgoing Docetists asserted that Christ was born without any participation of matter and that all the acts and sufferings of his life, including the Crucifixion, were mere appearances. They consequently denied Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension into heaven. Milder Docetists attributed to Christ an ethereal and heavenly body but disagreed on the degree to which it shared the real actions and sufferings of Christ. Docetism was attacked by all opponents of Gnosticism, especially by Bishop Ignatius of Antioch in the 2nd century.

Does this controversy appear to turn on whether Jesus existed? I'd say not. It was the nature of his existence that divided some Gnostics from the rest.

i suppose i'm still at where i was earlier

well tell us all about these historical Jesii, they sound fascinating


but if we are talking about the guy in the NT gospels, name something about him that is not found in other stories.

geo wrote:Just to clarify my previous point,

Since I believe that almost everything about Jesus comes down to myth, I would technically be called a myther myself if someone really wanted to pin a label on me.

I think that these things tend to go in circles because the two sides don't come to terms on this one point. If almost everything we know about Jesus comes from myth, does it really matter that much if the man really existed? To me it's a minor quibble and one which will never be answered satisfactorily. But because this point is not clarified, this is where it always gets hung up. or so it seems to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

Howdy, geo. I'm pretty much a myther, too, especially concerning the what the man was supposed to have done or what he became. Since I don't believe in that Jesus, there's really no importance (to me personally) in whatever historical ur-Jesus may have existed. Except that we can't ignore that belief in a man who was God or became God was very real in the origins of Christianity. The mythicist view that I've picked up from Booktalk is that a totally allegorical intent accounts for the Bible writings, but that later these were wrongly imputed to be about some actual events and people, i.e., that they were to be taken literally. So it's a matter of trying to get history as right as we're able to.

Do many in the mythicist camp really believe that Jesus never existed at all? I really don't know the answer to this. Why would the mythicists want to go that extra step? A much stronger argument aligns along these two major axes: a) Yes, Jesus may have existed or even probably existed; b) but we hardly know anything factual about him.

Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, but today 'mythicist' does seem to signal the view not only that Jesus never existed at all, but that the Bible doesn't even claim that he existed. Why would mythicists "go that extra step"? I would guess it's to give primacy to their own spiritual beliefs or to champion certain underdogs they view as being steamrolled by what became orthodox Christianity. They see a "real," original religion that was co-opted by people motivated by power or who simply lacked creative imagination. It's not that there can be nothing said in favor of that view, but mythicists appear to see a black-and-white situation in a manner not too dissimilar to that of fundamentalists.

just listening to a fascinating lecture by Professor Phil Harland

what a shame we all haven't time to listen to it

it deals with Marcion and has such fascinating tid-bits in it, especially if you have an interest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3NRVHsIyfc

very relevant to what we have been talking about and illuminating and from an impartial professor.

we see what we can get from the remaining undestroyed documents and... well it's just fascinating.

loved the bit where Marcion gave 200,000 sesterces to rome, but they gave it back when they knew who he was

and the accusations of baby eating etc

the doctrine alone was worth the price of admission.

so parallel to various threads here, Marcion would have been great on BT

DWill wrote: 'mythicist' does seem to signal the view not only that Jesus never existed at all, but that the Bible doesn't even claim that he existed.

The Bible operates on two levels, esoteric and exoteric. The esoteric or secret teachings are Gnostic mysteries designed for an elite elect, and present an enlightened spiritual philosophy. The exoteric or public teachings are popular stories designed for the general public, as an introduction to the Christian vision.

The claim of the existence of Jesus Christ in the flesh is a solely exoteric simplified teaching, whereas the deeper spiritual understanding, and the real basis of the authentic Christian ethic, is that the Jesus story was invented as allegory.

This clash between the public and secret teachings led to factional conflict. The secret faction was routed and largely destroyed due to the popularity of the simplified literal history. The corrupt church imposed its depraved mentality, suppressing the authentic ethical message that had inspired the faith.

Only fugitive traces of the original high teaching survived in hidden form in the Bible and in Christian symbols. The attack was so comprehensive and successful, given the use of the enfleshed myth as the basis of imperial stability and the inherent weakness of a secret society against an empire, that the original teachings were entirely lost, and now must be reconstructed from the fragments.

Flann is correct in denigrating Joseph Atwill, whose Christ Caesar theory is a silly fantasy like the stories of Jesus going to China. But Flann supports the depraved mentality of the church in also attacking Freke and Gandy, who are among the most brilliant scholars writing today.

Robert Tulip wrote:The Bible operates on two levels, esoteric and exoteric. The esoteric or secret teachings are Gnostic mysteries designed for an elite elect, and present an enlightened spiritual philosophy. The exoteric or public teachings are popular stories designed for the general public, as an introduction to the Christian vision.

The claim of the existence of Jesus Christ in the flesh is a solely exoteric simplified teaching, whereas the deeper spiritual understanding, and the real basis of the authentic Christian ethic, is that the Jesus story was invented as allegory.

Hi Robert, I think we have to step back a little bit here, with some preliminary questions such as who wrote the books of the Bible and when were they written? The old testament contains many books some of which were ancient even in the first century C.E.
If the essence of it all is Gnostic,how does this work? Gnosticism holds that the creator God of the Bible was an evil deluded demiurge who created a botched material world.

Robert Tulip wrote:Only fugitive traces of the original high teaching survived in hidden form in the Bible and in Christian symbols. The attack was so comprehensive and successful, given the use of the enfleshed myth as the basis of imperial stability and the inherent weakness of a secret society against an empire, that the original teachings were entirely lost, and now must be reconstructed from the fragments.

So were the "original teachings entirely lost"? Not if the dead sea scrolls are anything to go by. Theoretically on the conspiracy to destroy the "secret teachings" the old testament books found in the scrolls at Qumran should be radically different showing the purged,original "secret teachings," but they don't.

To read the old testament in a Gnostic framework what must be done? Well the creation is repeatedly called good in the creation account but the Gnostic must find some hidden "code" meaning bad.
If it's all code for pagan vegetation and fertility cycles, how do we explain the repeated prophetic denunciation of pagan fertility god worship,polytheism and idol worship so pervasive in these writings?
In short, we are to think that what it's blatantly saying is the opposite to what it's really saying!
Now it may provide some satisfaction to think, that it's just because regular readers are thick as planks that they read "God saw it was good" to mean it was good and not bad. We have to suppose that these ancient documents promote pagan polytheism and vegetation cycle religion while roundly condemning pagan idolatry and insisting on one God only,at one and the same time.

Robert Tulip wrote:But Flann supports the depraved mentality of the church in also attacking Freke and Gandy, who are among the most brilliant scholars writing today.

Well lets just say, I don't agree with you on their brilliance and scholarly prowess.

youkrst wrote:i suppose i'm still at where i was earlier



Quote:
well tell us all about these historical Jesii, they sound fascinating


but if we are talking about the guy in the NT gospels, name something about him that is not found in other stories.

Well Youkrst, When it comes to religions pagan or otherwise one expects to find certain similarities in subject matter and I don't think this proves borrowing or copying.

To look at the pagan Copycat thesis in depth from a Christian perspective, here's quite a detailed study of the subject by Glenn Miller.
www.christianthinktank.com/copycat.html

Robert wrote:The Bible operates on two levels, esoteric and exoteric.

that for me is the key right there.

man, if only dirty harry had been there to blow those nazi control freaks away

Marcion FTW!!!

He's back and this time he's packing iron, Marcions Revenge: The Third Millenium.

in theatres near you.