maryhelena

I think Neil's comment on McGarth's new blog post says all that needs to be said....

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.c...parallels.html


More Mythicist-Creationist Parallels

Steven Carr

So GDon cannot see the relevance to mythicism of a revelation from the Lord telling his cult how to get access to the body and blood of its founder in a ritual meal.

Why is that my problem?

aa5874

But, it was the non-worship of historical figures as Gods that was the fundamental significant difference between Jesus believers and other so-called Christians.

Justin Martyr would write that Simon Magus, an historical figure, a mere magician, was worshiped as a God, who, according to Justin, was of the devil.

Jesus believers did not worship historical figures as Gods.

Jesus believers ONLY worshiped the Creator, not the created.

The worship of historical figures is of the devil.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

Rick Sumner

I'm not sure how you think GDon's arguments here qualify as apologetics.

I agree that the analogy is a thinly veiled insult. It's one of those things that's tossed out against positions that are radically contrary to the mainstream all over the place, and is nothing more than polemic. And should rightly be called out as such. The mainstream analogues it to creationism, and the proponent analogues to Galileo, and both are doing nothing more than calling their opponents names. While GDon might bring up a cogent point, the point can be made without the analogy.

Bad arguments are bad because they're bad. Whether similar arguments can be found elsewhere or not is irrelevant.

But it's curious, Earl recently analogued me to Creationism not once, but twice. My indignation is recorded both times.

I don't recall him receiving the same sober reminder. Why might that be?

Toto

GDon is a self-described Christian who only comes here to argue with non-Christians and who has published a chapter in a work by notorious apologist JP Holding. That aligns him with the apologist contingent in my book, even when he claims not to believe the more unbelievable parts of Christianity.

He also always feels that I mischaracterize him. Perhaps he just needs to make his motives clearer.

This is not true. Creationists handle questions about creationism by referring to the Bible.

In this case, we have two issues: one is the historicity of Jesus, which must be dealt with before a positive case for mythicism. If a mythcist deconstructs the arguments for historicity, that is a positive contribution. It does not per se establish the case for mythicism, but it does clear a lot of rubbish out of the way, rubbish that keeps popping up.

maryhelena

Now that must be the most important comment of the day...Well said, Toto....:clapping:

aa5874

The worship of Jesus as a God was the alternative to the worshiping historical figures as Gods. And that is the fundamental reason for preaching about and worshiping Jesus as a God to show or convince people of antiquity that it was indeed foolish to worship men as Gods and that worshiping of historical entities as Gods would cause the wrath of God to fall on such persons.

This is a Pauline writer in Romans 1.22-25 It is extremely clear that the PAULINE writer did know, believe or wanted his audience to believe that Jesus was NOT a creation but the Creator or a God. And that worshiping Jesus as a God would save people from the wrath of this very God himself.

The PAULINE writers did NOT at all propagate the worship of historical figures as Gods.

maryhelena

Yes, in a sort of around about way you are right here.....I do think the gospel storyline with its figurative, mythological or symbolic man was actually one way of getting that message across. No historical man, however much any man or men, were important to early christianity - there was just no way that the early christians were going to be worshiping any man. And to safeguard that 'truth', that foundational principle - an unhistorical Jesus storyline was developed - there was going to be no way, whatsoever, that christianity was going to fall prey to the worship of a historical man.

And, of course, with an unhistorical Jesus storyline - all the dangers that could be involved in hereditary decent - family, brothers etc would be eliminated - at least eliminated as having any potential 'power' base within the christian movement. Yes, many sides to the gospel Jesus storyline....

Rick Sumner

I believe that GDon's point (which Carr is illustrating beautifully, albeit unintentionally) is that the focus on the former is taken as points scored for the latter.

aa5874

I do not get involve with round abouts.

I have produced information attributed to a Pauline writer.

The Pauline writings are NOT at all about the worship of historical figures of antiquity.

It is about the worship of a God and his Son Jesus Christ who was raised from the dead.

Now, you are getting into a round about.

More, round about.

Please read Galatians 1.1, there is no round about in there. Right!

Ga 1:1 -