freigeister

I was making the point that we might find that Smith was full of B.S., but at least we don't doubt that he was real. I find it appalling that some won't extend the same courtesy to Christ. Every movement has at its core a visionary founder. I think that the real origin of the Jesus-is-a-myth movement is that people want to erase the ills of Christian religion by erasing its founder. Of course this disregards the fact that any reasonable reading of what he said makes clear that he would condemn in the harshest words the religion that bears his name.

Yup. In our post-religious age, we have created a new religion to put us, in our own minds, at the top of the existential heap: progress.

Amaleq13

I find it bizarre that anyone would assume historicity for an individual simply out of courtesy.

Agreed but, more relevantly, does every movement hold that founder as the central figure of their beliefs? In the context of mythicism, the "visionary founder(s)" is either the initial apostles or Paul.

...a reaction to the discovery of the paucity of reliable historical information about the alleged man.

How about we try to avoid making a thread that explicitly assumes a historical crucifixion about mythicism, OK?

freigeister

Yeah, great idea, thanks. I felt myself slipping into the wankfest, but I just couldn't stop myself.

Mark Mc

How do you avoid anachronism doing this?

freigeister

If you mean how do we study the whole phenomenon of Christianity without anachronism, we do it by showing its development over time. If you mean how I use the term Christ without anachronism, well, he was apparently referred to as such during his life. Even if he hadn't been, I would still contend that it is the title which best befits him. Of course, part of our study is about what he has been called and why.

Sparrow

Let's let the 'Smith was full of BS' topic have a thread of its own; I'm not likely to participate. But I think Paul would be more analogous to Smith regarding Christianity vs. Mormonism. We can be fairly certain Smith existed because we have contemporaneous secular records of his existence. If you know of some for Jesus, bring them out for show and tell, if you please.

Christian and Christianity are terms that are largely meaningless to me. There are some who refer to themselves as Christians while agreeing with the MJ proposition. Some will deny miracles while accepting some real person at its origin. Others accept all four gospels, even their contradictions, as literally true (quite a feat!). Not having a reliable record of what an alleged Jesus actually said or thought, I have no idea which, if any, he might agree with.

Mark Mc

But if the Jerusalem community used the title to mean one thing and the Pauline community another and the John community yet another? Does "Christ" mean a prophet, or some sort of agent of God, or Wisdom personified? If you try to subsume all of those into "God" have you been accurate?

freigeister

The title "Christ" in no way implies divinity. It is the Greek translation of "Messiah", meaning "Anointed One". No more, no less. Of course, there has been copious ink spent on spinning the word to fit theological agendas. For me, though, it is nothing more than a title like "Buddha", meaning "Enlightened One". We can debate what it means to be enlightened, and we can discuss what his followers understood by the title. None of this is particularly problematic.

mikem

The passage will I think be found in Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico Politicus, although I have not been able to track down the particular quote. Much of this book is given over to discussing prophecy and revelation. Spinoza was, as you probably know a panthesit for who Nature and God were really the same substance, that exists in ifferent modes. We are a mode of God, so it was perfectly accpetable to Spinoza that inspired utterance should be regarded as "divine".

freigeister

I provided the link in my post.