I think I'm going to leave this topic up to you guys from now on. Sorry, tat, star, geo, Interbane. This argument only goes around in circles and is making me dizzy. This discussion will never reach any kind of satisfying conclusion until one side concedes, and considering those involved in the argument, the odds of that happening are slim at best. I've learned a lot from this thread, but I have to bow out now. Good luck, guys.

I completely understand. Progress won't be made, so debating only makes it seem as if people who make fantastical claims have something to stand on. The only way to make progress is to let these ridiculous beliefs fade with passing generations.

Rubbish! Discussion of this material helps people to assess the rival claims and work out which is true and which is false. False beliefs do not simply 'fade away' unless they are actively examined and countered.

Thanks for your input and thoughts all! Even you Stahrwe. One of the main points for people to understand, which Murdock lays out in her work, is that there isn't a shred of contemporary evidence for the life of Jesus. His flesh and blood historical existence was questioned from the time of the Docetics who savagely rejected the idea of an historical Jesus, even in ancient times. Right as the claim of history was made people were skeptical and it took some time for the orthodoxy to put down the skeptics, not by providing contemporary evidence, but by rising to power and trying to stomp out the opposition with brute force. But it never totally died out! It lasted in one form or another among the learned until the churches strangle hold on the world was finally loosened at which point the argument came back out in full force again.

The point is that NT scholarship has to rely on non-contemporary sources for the historical life of Jesus. He may or may not have even existed and there's no way of confirming that he absolutely did exist historically based on "scanty and problematic" non-contemporary sources. I would prefer that NT scholars take the high road and say "If" Jesus did exist, then he "might" have actually done some of these things and said some of these things. That would be honest. One could understand that it's completely faith based through and through, instead of trying to create the illusion that it's anything more than fairth based hear-say in order to try and hook people in.

Murdock, Peter Joseph, and others, always state that given the evidence of the mythological nature of the story combined with the utter lack of contemporary historical evidence, Jesus "probably" didn't even exist. They never give this as an absolute. As an observer, I tend to side with those taking the high road in all of this. Robert, while believing that Jesus existed and influenced some of the content in the gospels, takes the high road and openly states that there's no contemporary evidence to go by. I respect that very much! He's being honest with people. So the high road applies to both sides. I can't tell him that Jesus couldn't have existed, just that I feel that he may not have.

Apologists can't seem to take this high road that I'm speaking of here, and therefore I see their entire venture as one of "Pious Fraud", calling something absolute that isn't absolute at all. That's why I'm willing to lock horns the way I have here and push an apologist to the very brink. It's very revealing and I prefer people see for themselves where this all leads in the end.

I was once a faithful Young Earth believer as a child and early teen, I moved towards evemerism in my twenties, and finally I began to suspect that Jesus was just as mythical as the Buddha around 28-30, at which point I stumbled across the history of the mythicist position and read up on it. Finally, I was eventually asked to moderate in Murdocks forum and I accepted. So I've personally witnessed all three perspectives and can identify with each of them.

A) Jesus was the divine Son of God. (Stahrwe)

B) Jesus was probably just a man who lived and died but did not resurrect literally who was later mythologized. (Robert and Geo)

C) Jesus is a mythological character who probably had no historical existence to begin with. (Tat and Interbane)

I'm going to take a break from this thread too. It's an interesting subject, but until I actually read Murdock's book I can't really say much more about Jesus as myth. Thanks everyone for an interesting discussion.

Thank you for your participation and perspective Geo.

If you would like to discuss the docets I suggest that we start a discussion on heretics, I promise you a robust discussion. The current discussion is TCMA and attempts to divert from it or shift the burden will not be successful.

How many Egyptologists at major universities did Murdock contact for input on her research?

Hey Stahrwe, let me just say that we're playing two opposing roles here and I've been a little abrupt with you at times. I hope that you haven't taken it too personally. I haven't taken your opposing me too personally and I hope that we can just have fun with it while we passionately state our personal opinions.

The Docetics are a part of TCMA. They make up the beginning of the history of the mythicist position. So discussing them here in this thread is right on topic and well in order for that matter. The point is that these early Christian "Heretics" were simply mystical types who saw Jesus as a mystical oriented, rather than flesh and blood historical figure. In short, the orthodoxy presented an historical Jesus to which the Docetics strongly objected from the beginning. We have an argument going on as to whether or not Jesus lived a flesh and blood historical life as a human being on the earth. How could that be if his historical existence was a well established fact in the ancient world? Obviously it wasn't well established enough to prevent the Docetic and Gnostic types from believing the way that they did and opposing the historical angle.

The mythicist proposal, which I've mentioned several times, is that Jesus started out as a mystical oriented savior myth that had no real historical existence as a core. The Therapeuts and Gnostic types of the first century had allegorical writings mentioned by Philo and referred to by the early Church fathers as well. We suspect that these early mystical and allegorical writings had circulated around until finally an orthodox movement arose around the end of the first century seeking to put these heavily Judaized mystery school allegories back into a more secretive exoteric format. So they began to add an historical angle to the mystical oriented allegories. From this basic mythological and mystical source material the gospel attempts drew from and expanded on eventually resulting in the gospels that firmly emerged into the historical record around the middle to late second century. From there they were worked over many times by many different people along the way.

But the point is that those who were aware of the previous mystical savior figure format immediately objected to the new exoteric presentation that fixed a flesh and blood historical existence to the former mystical savior figure allegories. Thus began the struggle between the Docetics and the Orthodoxy. One could imagine that it would cause quite a clash that would last for some time while trying to turn a once mystical oriented savior myth into a concrete historical narrative when some people knew good and well what was happening and strongly opposed this new shift in perspective. The orthodox church fathers had to address this issue for the first several centuries as is evident in their writings and in the writings attributed to St. John. So this is a way of speculating as to why.

The way to "counter" them is not to debate the people who champion them, it's to educate people correctly in the first place. They are wrong, end of story. The real battleground is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ju ... -education

edit - this isn't quite right. It depends on the claim. I was referring to the YEC position, not necessarily the Christ myth.

Thanks Tat. This hones in precisely on the extreme hypocrisy of Christianity for claiming knowledge where the sources are so uncertain. According to John, Christ said to Pilate ‘I came to bear witness to the truth’. For Christians to follow Christ should require a similar commitment to truth. As such, all the resources of evidence and observation should be marshaled to provide the best available indication of what is true.

Simple logic requires that you cannot say ‘I would like it to be true therefore it is’. Unfortunately this is the fallacious method of the conventional faith of Christian apologists. The evidence is not sufficient for us to claim with any confidence that the Jesus of the Gospels actually lived. On impartial scholarly criteria, the balance of probabilities is that Jesus was invented as a fictional character, with the same historic status as Gandalf or Luke Skywalker.

However, this scholarly approach of empirical doubt (sadly not followed by apologists), may not get to the real story. There are many things that happened for which the evidence is scanty. A comparable Australian example is the national game of Australian Rules. Indigenous people claim that it is based on a game they played before white conquest, but historians say there is no written evidence for the claim. Many people have a hunch that the indigenous claim is true.

As we have discussed before, my view is that the coherence of the main ideas of Christ is sufficient to suggest they came from a single individual of great genius, and that the ‘life of Christ’ as described in the Gospels was subsequently embroidered around this driving central philosophical framework. I freely admit this is a speculative claim with little evidentiary support; it just seems to me that the writers of the Gospels were more likely to build on a germ of truth than invent a story of pure fiction.

The Christian twist, also used by Daniel Defoe in Robinson Crusoe, was to give the imaginative story extra weight by asserting that the described events actually happened. Somewhat like a chain letter threatening the wrath of God on whoever does not send it on to ten more people, the viral meme of Christianity said that only deceivers would doubt the historic truth of the alleged story. This emotional blackmail has been wildly successful, but the bluff deserves to be called.

What did St. Chrysostom say about docetism?

"St. John Chrysostom clearly delineated two purposes for the Orthodox marriage: the preservation of chastity and the creation and rearing of children."

Damn! And here I thought kids came from storks!


Chryostork's opinion:
"O, only-begotten Son and Word of God, you... without change became man and were crucified"

Everything looks complex here!!Please leave this alone.

“For example, a commentator on the works of Church father St. Chrysostom (c. 347-407) remarks, "The Docetae, as their name denoted, considered that our blessed Lord did not actually exist on earth, or suffer upon the cross, but that all was a phantasy."10 In discussing the various "heretics" of the second century and onward, the author first addresses the Valentinians, who "were of opinion that our Lord had passed through the Blessed Virgin as water through a conduit..."11He then says, "Others asserted that the incarnation of Christ was a myth." “

TCMA by Murdock, page 5

10 St. Chrysostom's Picture of the Religion of His Age, 107.
11 St. Chrysostom's Picture, 108, citing Chrysostom's "In Matt. Homil. viii. § 1."

Look for a moment at this quote from TCMA. Murdock says, “a commentator on the works of Church father…” What commentator is she referring to? She has footnotes to a book, St. Chrsyostom’s Picture of the Religion of His Age. So I guess the commentator is the author of that book. But when I check Amazon.com there are two book with the same title: One is a reprint from an 1876 publication by an unknown author. It has 74 pages, the other shows John Chrysostom as the author, it also shows a reprint from an 1876 publication but is 156 pages. Which if either of these books is Murdock referring to? Why didn’t she just name the commentator? Why didn’t she quote John Chrysostom if he wrote something in support of her theory? I can’t ascribe any level of credibility to this information because I have no idea where it came from. When quoting a church historian regarding docetism, why pick Chrysostom, when Ignatius and others were much closer to the time when Jesus lived, and for that matter, why not discuss the quotes below from 1st and 2nd John?

Docetism did not deny that Jesus existed, or that he was born and lived among men, or that he was crucified. What it said was that what people saw was an illusion. But to the eyewitness he would have appeared real.


Docetism - An Early Heresy

by E. A. Green

Docetism is an early Christian heresy which claimed that Christ was not truly human. Docetism denies the true and full humanity of Christ. The word ‘Docetism’ is derived from the Greek word “dokeo” which means “to appear or seem”. Proponents of this error taught that Christ only appeared or seemed to be human.

The apostle John trumpets explicit warnings against this early heresy:
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” 1 John 4: 1-3

“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” 2 John 7

These ominous warnings by the Apostle John confirm what secular history also states; that Docetism had appeared very early among the churches. But, where did it come from? The answer is obtained by understanding the influence pre-christian gnosticism had on the ancient Greek and Roman world. Harold O. J. Brown says:

“The gnostic movement as a whole and even church-related Gnosticism are really too big and too foreign to the New Testament to be called heresies; they really represent an alternative religion. In producing docetism, Gnosticism presented us with the first heresy that can be clearly lodged ‘within’ Christianity.”

“Gnosticism was not a Christian movement, properly speaking, because apart from a limited number of shared ideas, its interests were quite different from those of biblical religion. The doctrine of Christ was a shared interest, however. Gnosticism produced docetism because it considered it intolerable to think that a pure spiritual being, Christ, could suffer as a man. Hence he must have been human in appearance only.” [HERESIES; pg. 52]

Development Of Early Faith & Docetism
Logically and experientially, the heresy of Docetism could only obtain with second generation believers. Harold O. J. Brown explains this important point:

“The very earliest disciples of Christ encountered him first of all as a man like themselves. Only gradually did they become aware of his extraordinary attributes and come to understand that he was claiming to be one with God the Father. These first Christians experienced Jesus as a man whom they slowly came to recognize as the Messiah, and ultimately acknowledged, in the words of doubting Thomas, as Lord and God (John 20:28). For them, the humanity of Jesus was self-evident; his deity was their confession of faith.”
“Following the passing of the first generation of believers, those who had known Jesus before his resurrection, later believers were almost invariably confronted first of all with his deity, and only slowly came to recognize that the Savior was also fully human, just as we are. Because they heard him proclaimed as Lord and God, it was the news of his full humanity that was rather shocking and in a sense unexpected. It is important to note that this transformation took place during the lifetime of the Apostles. Even Paul himself never knew Jesus after the flesh, as he puts it. He encountered him in the claims--- which he considered blasphemous--- of his followers, who proclaimed him as the divine Son of God.” [HERESIES; pg. 27]

Early Creed Of Ignatius Against Docetism
Docetism, the first of the heresies involving Christology, provoked a reaction which called forth the earliest Christian creed, that of Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius was an early post-New Testament writer who vigorously opposed Docetism. He was martyred toward the end of the reign of Emperor Trajan (ruled 98-117). Harold Brown comments:
“ Rather than seeking to escape this fate (being martyred), he courted it, and admonished the Christians in Rome to do nothing to help him avoid it. In a few brief lines, the creed of Ignatius repeatedly emphasized that Jesus ‘truly, and not in appearance’ did and experienced all that the New Testament ascribes to him, including truly, and not in appearance, being born, suffering, dying, and rising.

Inasmuch as Ignatius anticipated being put to death himself, truly, and not in appearance, his emphasis on the true resurrection of Jesus is entirely understandable.” [HERESIES; pg. 52]

http://home.sprynet.com/~eagreen/docetism.html

Heresies by Harold O. J. Brown
Hardcover: 512 pages
Publisher: Hendrickson Publishers (May 30, 1998)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1565638670
ISBN-13: 978-1565638679

"The history of Christian theology is in large part a history of heresies, because Jesus and the claims he made . . . seemed incredible," writes the author. Heresies presents "the story of how succeeding generations of Christians through almost twenty centuries have tried to understand, trust, and obey Jesus Christ." Particularly concerned with christology and trinitarianism, the author calls on the four major creeds of the church—Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian, and Chalcedonian—to separate orthodoxy from heresy. He acknowledges that heresy has done much more than confuse and divide the church. It has also helped the church to classify orthodoxy. Just as heresy served this purpose historically, so it serves this purpose pedagogically in Heresies.

This volume presents a clarion call to evangelicals to preserve tenaciously "the faith once delivered to the saints." Frank E. James III wrote in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society: "Brown deserves to be commended not only for his insightful scholarship and his readable style but also and more importantly for providing a sorely-needed jab to the soft underbelly of modern evangelicalism." --This text refers to an alternate Hardcover edition.

About the Author
Harold O.J. Brown, Ph.D. Harvard University, is professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical International University and author of several books.

Why do you offer people's opinions as if they have any weight in the discussion? Of course people who believe in your fable will also advocate it.