Stringbean

Don't know it would be close. I tend to lean more toward Mr. Doherty's argument but I like them both. Most of what I know about Mr. Doherty's work has been from online reading as I do not have any of his books money is tight and has been for a while.

GakuseiDon

Agreed.

aa5874

The mythicist position has ZERO to do with Doherty or Acharya S.

In the HJ/MJ debate--the myth position is that there was NO "historical Jesus" of Nazareth and NO credible sources of antiquity for the "historical Jesus of Nazareth".

Stringbean

How do you figure this?

http://stellarhousepublishing.com/mythicist.html

aa5874

Whether or NOT Doherty or Acharya S are MJers is IRRELEVANT to the MYTH position.

The MYTH position is that there was NO historical Jesus of Nazareth and that there is NO evidence from antiquity to support an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

In order for a person to ARGUE for HJ of Nazareth, such a person MUST have a CREDIBLE historical source with reference to HJ of Nazareth.

There is ZERO source of antiquity, NOTHING for HJ of Nazareth.

We have FOUR CANONISED GHOST STORIES and Pauline writers who claimed Jesus was SEEN ALIVE AFTER he was dead for THREE days and NOTHING for HJ of Nazareth.

Stringbean

Your right about that.

Sheshbazzar

From the first paragraph of your link;
I believe it has been around a lot longer. Obviously Doherty and Acharya S did not originate the mythicist position.
And although they have contributed their ideas and views, those are not the only ideas and views that exist among mythicists.
My rejection of a HJ has very little to do with the NTs tall-tales, and I would be just as much of a mythicist if Doherty and Acharya had never written a word.

Stringbean

OK..thats cool. I guess everyone is wrong then.

mountainman

Cool.

Not really, since all that follows (from reading the exchange here) is that there is not yet any formal agreements between those who see themselves aligned as mythicists to comprehensively outline all forms of historical mythicism. It may be a recent "buzzword" however the term "mythicism" can arguable incorparate references such as Docetism.

The Docetae as Mythicists

Docetism as an antichristian heresy has been around since the beginning as can be demonstrated by citing the canonsical letter of John who warns that there were unbelievers already present in his world, whom he calls antichristian, who refused to confess that Jesus had really and truly appeared in the flesh. This to me reads as equivalent to the admission that there were people around when John was writing his canonical letter in the scriptorium that a personality by the name of Jesus, as described in the lineup of the canonical books, had not been an historical figure. Or more simply, they refused to confess in the Historical Jesus. Such antichristian people (that is - in any other words - historical mythicists) may have been tortured by the victorious Christian army as early as c.324 CE, according to rescripts issued by Constantine following the council of Antioch. (See Robin Lane-Fox's "Pagan and Christians")


The Gnostics as Mythicists

Examination of historical mythicists imo must also include answering the question whether the gnostics were mythicists of some variety. There appears to be support for the opinion that at least some of the gnostics were unbelieving and antichristian. And FWIW what I mean by "gnostics" are those vile, blasphemous and heretical people who authored the "non canonical Gnostic Gospels and Acts", and their vile, blasphemous heretical preservers and followers.

By the orthodox christians they were labelled as "the sons of the devil". Are the apologists going insist that these people were Christian believing sons of the devil? Probably Their texts and books were listed on an index of prohibited books. Such lists would have been the subject of military search and destroy missions in the 4th and 5th century. The list of prohibited books evolved through the centuries following until finally it began to be openly published by the Vatican when the printing press arrived. For further details see the question about The Nicaean Origin of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum ("List of Prohibited Books")

Sheshbazzar

I did not say that everyone, or even anyone was wrong.
I think almost all mythicist are right about certain of their points, and yet may reach the same conclusion that there never was a living flesh and blood HJ from different directions, based upon different factors.