Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Stringbean · 09-26-2011, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

OK..thats cool.

Cool.

Quote:

I guess everyone is wrong then.

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", and 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 ntil finally it began to be openly published by the Vatican when the printing press arrived.

Myths can be broken down into three categories:

Philosophical
Historical
Poetical

Where do you figure the MJ falls? Remsberg says that its almost impossible to distinguish a historical from a philosophical myth.

aa5874 · 09-26-2011, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Myths can be broken down into three categories:

Philosophical
Historical
Poetical

Where do you figure the MJ falls? Remsberg says that its almost impossible to distinguish a historical from a philosophical myth.

It is NOT necessary to attempt to categorise Myth fables.

What category is ZEUS?

Jesus Christ belongs in that category.

What catergory is the God of the Jews?

Jesus Christ belong in that category.

What category was Marcion's Phantom?

Jesus Christ is in that category.

In the NT, Jesus was the Child of a Ghost.

Is that poetry, history or philosophy?

IT'S MYTHOLOGY.

mountainman · 09-26-2011, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

OK..thats cool.

Cool.

Quote:

I guess everyone is wrong then.

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", and 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 ntil finally it began to be openly published by the Vatican when the printing press arrived.

Myths can be broken down into three categories:

Philosophical
Historical
Poetical

Where do you figure the MJ falls?

My wager would be that the HJ is a pious forgery of the 4th century. As such the MJ first appeared with the revolutionary Constantine Codex industry. Just like Bilbo Baggins first appeared in the Tolkien Codex of the 20th century.

Quote:

Remsberg says that its almost impossible to distinguish a historical from a philosophical myth.

Remsberg had to address an early 20th century HJ hegemonic audience, and did not say it was in fact impossible. We know a little more today about the effects of psychological conditioning on people's belief systems.

We also today are aware of the political reality that "War is a Racket", and we must not forget that the earliest Christian Bibles, like the earliest Jewish Bibles and the earliest Islamic Korans, were the products of empire-wide wars. Each "Holy Book" was published by the regimes associated with military commanders who were intent on creating a unified monotheistic state religion in their respective empires. The process of "canonization" of the Holy Book is then undertaken after the commander's death to bring the Holy Scripture in line and ratified. Such "Myths" are commonly part of the "Racket of War", and need to be exposed as such.

Dave31 · 09-27-2011, 10:10 AM

Earl Doherty's position on mythology throughout his latest book seems to be more of a philosophical, Platonist, gnostic position. Earl mentions astrotheology but defers to Acharya S for that subject in his book "Jesus Neither God nor Man" on page 153 under the subtitle "Religion of the Stars." To return the favor Acharya S defers to Doherty on Paul for the most part too. Their work greatly compliments each other in that way.

There are obviously many long winded books about religious mythology but, I've never seen or even heard of anyone creating a succinct mythicist position before until Acharya did so in her book Chris in Egypt, on page 12.

Now, this is significant because we've had words such as theist, atheist - even Evemerism has been around since the 3rd or 4th century BCE but there has never been a clearly defined and explained mythicist position before that could be added to dictionaries and encyclopedias.

It's also very interesting to learn that there are no requirements in New Testament scholarship to study the case for mythicism in order to get their PhD. So, why would anyone trust NT scholars on the subject when they know little about it? They tend to be narrowly focused on the NT and unable to realize their own tunnel vision.

This is further explain here

I'd like to hear from Earl Doherty and Dr. Robert Price to see what they think of Acharya's mythicist position to see how it may compliment their own views. It would be great to see them all work together and create their own Mythicist Project. Maybe if we ask them and inspire them to do so they'll do it? Everybody knows it's badly needed when you think about it.

The Jesus Project was an epic failure ... not a single mythicist was allowed in. As Earl Doherty explains here

What we really need is a Mythicist Project that includes mythicists like Acharya S, Doherty, Dr. Price and others.

:huh:

GakuseiDon · 09-27-2011, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Earl Doherty's position on mythology throughout his latest book seems to be more of a philosophical, Platonist, gnostic position. Earl mentions astrotheology but defers to Acharya S for that subject in his book "Jesus Neither God nor Man" on page 153 under the subtitle "Religion of the Stars." To return the favor Acharya S defers to Doherty on Paul for the most part too. Their work greatly compliments each other in that way...

I'd like to hear from Earl Doherty and Dr. Robert Price to see what they think of Acharya's mythicist position to see how it may compliment their own views. It would be great to see them all work together and create their own Mythicist Project. Maybe if we ask them and inspire them to do so they'll do it? Everybody knows it's badly needed when you think about it.

I think a "Jesus Project" devoted to mythicism is an excellent idea.

I can see nothing but good coming out of Doherty and Price examining Acharya S's work, gently pointing out any flaws or building on her strengths, and she respectfully responding to that examination. In fact, I would urge others to help in this process. Emphasise the strong arguments, strengthen the weak arguments! To paraphrase Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further than others, it is only because I have stood on the shoulders of Pygmies." (joke!)

I think those three working together, with Carrier and Verenna and others as well, could only help but build a stronger, more robust mythicist argument. (serious!) Certainly working towards a consensus amongst a group of serious scholars would only make any argument stronger.

Stringbean · 09-28-2011, 03:06 AM

I agree! A site for the Mythicists Position is an excellent idea! I have a site sitting and doing nothing at the moment we could use it! Only problem is how do you bring all these authors together to contribute to the site? I often wonder if their stance is as strong as their writings?

GakuseiDon · 09-28-2011, 03:55 AM

That's good Stringbean! (By the way, are you named after the banjo player of Grand Ole Oprey and Hee Haw fame?)

There was a book published recently called "The Historical Jesus: Five Views", where five authors gave their view on the historicity of Jesus, and the other four critiqued each view in turn. I think a similar format would be good to promote the mythicist view, i.e. "The Mythical Jesus: Five Views".

A dream list would be:

Acharya S
G.A. Wells
Earl Doherty
Dr Robert M Price
Richard Carrier (?)

Each would write their own views, and the other four would provide feedback.

Other possible participants:

Tom Harpur
Freke & Gandy

Dave31 · 09-28-2011, 07:38 AM

GakuseiDon "I think those three working together, with Carrier and Verenna..."

Definitely not! Rook Hawkins / Tom Verenna most definitely doesn't deserve to be part of it at all in any way shape or form. He has done nothing for starters. His only qualifications are a high school diploma. I still remember when he used to claim on his blog or website that he was a "Historian, bible and ancient text expert." This kid is a scholar wannabe. Why this kid ever got the attention of Carrier, Price, Dawkins etc may be the most interesting thing about him.

Regarding Acharya's work, all Rook has ever done is maliciously smear here. Having Rook/Tom be apart of this would be no different than having GakuseiDon be apart of it. So, rather than ruin the project with someone like Rook, who has nothing to offer, it would be a far better choice to select scholars like Dr. Robert Eisenman, Ken Humphreys etc.

I would not recommend Freke & Gandy either.

Toto · 09-28-2011, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

That's good Stringbean! (By the way, are you named after the banjo player of Grand Ole Oprey and Hee Haw fame?)

There was a book published recently called "The Historical Jesus: Five Views", where five authors gave their view on the historicity of Jesus, and the other four critiqued each view in turn. I think a similar format would be good to promote the mythicist view, i.e. "The Mythical Jesus: Five Views".

A dream list would be:

Acharya S
G.A. Wells
Earl Doherty
Dr Robert M Price
Richard Carrier (?)

Each would write their own views, and the other four would provide feedback.

Other possible participants:

Tom Harpur
Freke & Gandy

Wells does not describe himself as a mythicist any more. But then Robert M Price contributed to the book on the historical Jesus.

Tom Verenna has grown quite a bit since his "Rook" days. He is now working towards a degree and no longer describes himself as a mythicist, but more of an agnostic. His blog is worth reading.

There is already a sort of mythicism forum, run by Rene Salm, involving Doherty and Price and Frank Zindler, for mythicists who are interested in this sort of interaction of ideas with the hope of refining them into a better academic theory of mythicism. The group sponsored a recent essay contest, but I haven't heard of any activities lately.

I don't see how the others would work in this environment. Acharya S comes from a New Age background, where criticizing someone's ideas seems to be considered impolite.

Freke and Gandy are New Age religious leaders. Tom Harpur is an Episcopalian. I read this group as more religious than academic, more interested in gnosticism for its own sake.

Dave31 · 09-28-2011, 10:37 AM

Toto

Quote:

Acharya S comes from a New Age background, where criticizing someone's ideas seems to be considered impolite.

That's utterly false and you KNOW it, Toto. There's a big difference between valid criticism and malicious smears and libel. Especially from those who've never actually read the work, which is intellectual dishonesty.

Quote:

Tom Verenna has grown quite a bit since his "Rook" days

No, he certainly has not. He ruins everything he gets involved in.

Rook Watch

Rook's BS exposed

Rook doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in this thread. His blog is not worth reading neither is his book, which ranks over 2.5 million right now at Amazon and I've never heard anyone talk about it - because it's not worth talking about same as his blog. He gets coddled with special treatment here due to his sucking up to Carrier.

The mythicism forum, run by Rene Salm seem afraid to mention Acharya's work even though Salm and Doherty are favorable of her work. That project doesn't seem to have gone anywhere.

09-28-2011, 03:55 AM	#447
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	That's good Stringbean! (By the way, are you named after the banjo player of Grand Ole Oprey and Hee Haw fame?) There was a book published recently called "The Historical Jesus: Five Views", where five authors gave their view on the historicity of Jesus, and the other four critiqued each view in turn. I think a similar format would be good to promote the mythicist view, i.e. "The Mythical Jesus: Five Views". A dream list would be: Acharya S G.A. Wells Earl Doherty Dr Robert M Price Richard Carrier (?) Each would write their own views, and the other four would provide feedback. Other possible participants: Tom Harpur Freke & Gandy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-27-2011, 10:10 AM	#444
Dave31 Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA Posts: 425	Earl Doherty's position on mythology throughout his latest book seems to be more of a philosophical, Platonist, gnostic position. Earl mentions astrotheology but defers to Acharya S for that subject in his book "Jesus Neither God nor Man" on page 153 under the subtitle "Religion of the Stars." To return the favor Acharya S defers to Doherty on Paul for the most part too. Their work greatly compliments each other in that way. There are obviously many long winded books about religious mythology but, I've never seen or even heard of anyone creating a succinct mythicist position before until Acharya did so in her book Chris in Egypt, on page 12. Now, this is significant because we've had words such as theist, atheist - even Evemerism has been around since the 3rd or 4th century BCE but there has never been a clearly defined and explained mythicist position before that could be added to dictionaries and encyclopedias. It's also very interesting to learn that there are no requirements in New Testament scholarship to study the case for mythicism in order to get their PhD. So, why would anyone trust NT scholars on the subject when they know little about it? They tend to be narrowly focused on the NT and unable to realize their own tunnel vision. This is further explain here I'd like to hear from Earl Doherty and Dr. Robert Price to see what they think of Acharya's mythicist position to see how it may compliment their own views. It would be great to see them all work together and create their own Mythicist Project. Maybe if we ask them and inspire them to do so they'll do it? Everybody knows it's badly needed when you think about it. The Jesus Project was an epic failure ... not a single mythicist was allowed in. As Earl Doherty explains here What we really need is a Mythicist Project that includes mythicists like Acharya S, Doherty, Dr. Price and others. :huh:

09-28-2011, 03:06 AM	#446
Stringbean Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Southern United States Posts: 149	I agree! A site for the Mythicists Position is an excellent idea! I have a site sitting and doing nothing at the moment we could use it! Only problem is how do you bring all these authors together to contribute to the site? I often wonder if their stance is as strong as their writings?

09-28-2011, 07:38 AM	#448
Dave31 Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: USA Posts: 425	GakuseiDon "I think those three working together, with Carrier and Verenna..." Definitely not! Rook Hawkins / Tom Verenna most definitely doesn't deserve to be part of it at all in any way shape or form. He has done nothing for starters. His only qualifications are a high school diploma. I still remember when he used to claim on his blog or website that he was a "Historian, bible and ancient text expert." This kid is a scholar wannabe. Why this kid ever got the attention of Carrier, Price, Dawkins etc may be the most interesting thing about him. Regarding Acharya's work, all Rook has ever done is maliciously smear here. Having Rook/Tom be apart of this would be no different than having GakuseiDon be apart of it. So, rather than ruin the project with someone like Rook, who has nothing to offer, it would be a far better choice to select scholars like Dr. Robert Eisenman, Ken Humphreys etc. I would not recommend Freke & Gandy either.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.