jgreen44

One of my brothers is a Hyper-Preterist and author so I know that Preterists despise Mythicists. Yet it is interesting to note that, while Mythicists spiritualize the first coming of Christ, Preterists spiritualize the second coming.

ApostateAbe

I see only a faint comparison. Preterists believe as they do in order to justify the otherwise-failed apocalyptic prophecies of Jesus, whereas mythicists believe as they do largely out of hyper-skepticism of Christianity. Neither camp seems willing to confront the true meaning and implications of Jesus' failed doomsday prophecies, but neither can the vast majority of people of any religious stripe. Only some scholars of the New Testament seem willing to grasp their significance.

jgreen44

"Christianity". That's a big word. I am hyper-skeptical of 4th century Constantinian "Christianity" but there is spiritual truth in the Bible. It's just largely symbolic truth.

I am curious. What do you see as "the true meaning and implications of Jesus' failed doomsday prophecies"?

ApostateAbe

I am a literalist of any religious scriptures, so I like to accept the plainest meaning that I can of anything in the New Testament (that isn't explicitly a parable or hyperbole). The meaning of Jesus' apocalyptic prophecies was that the first-century world order would come to a violent end as a heavenly army led by the Son of Man wages war against the states, and a new Kingdom of God would be instituted, and only the faithful and righteous Jewish followers of Jesus would be let into it. All three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) contain the apocalyptic deadline stated two different ways: 1) "...this generation will not pass away..." and 2) "...some of you standing here will not taste death before...". The implication of this paradigm of Jesus is that Jesus was a failed doomsday prophet and cult leader. Preterists confront only the partial meaning of it--Jesus didn't predict only the return of the Son of Man. Mainstream Christians rearrange the meaning entirely to move the deadline forward. And mythicists fully understand the meaning but don't like the implications, for it seems to prove that Jesus existed.

aa5874

So, based on your interpretation then , Jesus as a MAN was a total failure but his followers deified him and refused to deify others whose predictions supposedly came true.

Why was not Daniel the prophet deified if his prophecies came true?

Instead a man who told people he would resurrect in 3 days and that the world would come to an end within his generation but was in the end a false prophet was deified. And it was known he was a false prophet within 72 hours of his death.

There is something radically wrong with the deification an HJ who supposedly did live for thirty years in Galilee and was confirmed to be a false prophet almost immediately after he was executed for blasphemy.

jgreen44

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this because Preterists go on and on about how the general resurrection of the dead was spiritual, the old "world" came to an end with the destruction of the Temple, etc.I never thought of that. Why would the author of gMark "make up" a messiah character who couldn't keep his promises?

ApostateAbe

jgreen44, just as a head's up, I don't argue with aa5874.

jgreen44

Elvis really lived (and died) but there are/or were people who claimed to see him at gas stations and such after his death. Couldn't the resurrected Jesus phenomenon be something like this? An urban legend gone wild?

ApostateAbe

I suppose you are right about that. You can solve any theological problem by turning statements of physicality into mere spirituality, and that is how preterists solve the problem of the otherwise-failed apocalyptic prophecies. They like to think that they have faced the problem of the passing of the deadline head on, but the best solution seems to be to accept the plain meaning and not believe it.
I don't know, and I don't think that mythicists typically have much, if any, explanation behind the motivation of early Christian authors, because no explanation seems to make sense. Their arguments, I think, focus primarily on criticism of arguments and evidence in favor of a historical human Jesus, rather than having sensible alternative explanations for the beginnings of Christianity. The most popular mythicist author today (Earl Doherty) gives an explanation for early Christianity that doesn't seem to make the least bit of sense in light of the evidence (that Paul and the founders of Christianity along with him believed in a merely spiritual Jesus).

jgreen44

Is it possible that Paul's Jesus was a purely spiritual being while Mark's Jesus was a mortal man?