GakuseiDon

To be honest, many mythicists probably deserve the slurs that they get. Have you ever read Acharya S? Freke & Gandy? Total rubbish. This assumption that there is some mythical case that has been established and needs to be addressed is even worse than the assumption that there was a historical Jesus. Do YOU want to defend a mythicist case? Then let's do it. Let's go to the debate board and argue it.

There most definitely will be a backlash in some quarters, no doubt about it.

From a liberal Christian perspective: If the Fall wasn't historical, then why must the Redemption be historical? God as Christ, sacrificing himself to Himself, is a powerful image that is all myth.

maryhelena

Do you really expect me to engage with you in any involved discussion of a mythicist perspective when you write what you have just written - "many mythicists probably deserve the slurs that they get".

I have repeated pointed out to you that the basic mythicist position is that the gospel Jesus is not historical. Anything beyond that is additional - as is the historical Jesus position - cynic sage, apocalyptic prophet, social reformer etc etc. Its the core issue that needs to be address before one starts 'attacking' any of the subsequent developments. You repeatedly call for the subsequent, the follow on ideas - as though those ideas are primary when they are not. Its the core issue that is vital - for both mythicists and historicists - anything else is secondary. Throwing slurs around, like McGrath has done, is to throw a dust cloud over the real issue at stake here, side-stepping instead of facing the problem. GDon, if that is what you believe - why on earth are you bothering with the mythicists? If you can comfortable accept a Christian theology without a historical Jesus - why the agro re the mythicist - people who, likewise, see no need for a historical Jesus anyway. Surely, such a position, as you just outlined, gives you no reason to think that casting slurs, on others who find no need for a historical Jesus, is somehow appropriate...

Indeed, once the historical Jesus idea is confined to the museum of historical ideas - there might well be an explosion of new ideas on just what does constitute Christianity, what is its true core. There could well be a different orientation possible - as happened to Judaism once its temple was no more. Theological ideas have to move on as do all other ideas - that is if they seek to be relevant to a modern mind...

GakuseiDon

Yes, most definitely! Have you read mythicist literature, like Acharya S and her Super Pygmies? If not, read this thread that I started here:
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/view...p?f=3&t=101102

Now, you might respond "But that is not the mythicist case that I am talking about", but how does anyone know??? Just lay out the mythicist case, and let's discuss it. Isn't that what you want? What am I missing here?

Hell, I've all but begged Neil Godfrey to lay out his case for mythicism, and also to explain why he isn't a mythicist himself, but he doesn't do it. He wants people like James McGrath to understand the mythicist case, but he won't lay it out? What am I missing there?

Maryhelena, start a new thread with your evidence for an ahistorical Jesus, and lets discuss it! Isn't that what you want?

:banghead: Who is arguing that the gospel Jesus is historical? Me? James McGrath? Who?

OK. So let's address the problem. Lay out your case -- or the case of whomever you find convincing -- and let's discuss it. Tell me why I should care about you regarding that the gospel Jesus is not historical, when I -- a historicist -- also believe that the gospel Jesus is not historical.

Isn't it obvious? My interest is in how people thought back then. Mythicists like Doherty are wrong in how they portray how people thought. Simple as that.

Look, I was an atheist until fairly recently, and even as a Christian I don't think it matters whether Jesus was historical or not. But as a self-identified Christian there is no way in hell for me to prove that on this board. Some are always going to mistrust my motives (hi Toto!) Fair enough. But the fact is that, whether I am atheist or theist, the mythicist cases that I've seen are nonsense. They are simply crap. I'm sorry to say this to you, because you don't want to hear it, but that is result of my investigation (as a layman). If you want to disagree that mythicist theories are crap and you want to look into this further, let's investigate it!

Maryhelena, should the mythicist case be looked into? Yes or no? If the answer is yes, then simply lay out the evidence and let's start looking.

As for a historical Jesus, I've laid out my case here: http://forum.richarddawkins.net/view...p?f=3&t=108778. Join in if you like.

dog-on

Ok GDon.

Some guys read a savior into the LXX. Later some other guys wrote a fictional biography of the savior character.

Disprove it.

GakuseiDon

Why should I disprove it? Why should I even care? Should I care that some mythicists believe that Krishna was crucified, but that British covered all this up? Because that is what some mythicists claim.

maryhelena

Quite frankly is there any other? Historicists think they are on to something here - lets just take Jesus out of the gospels - and there you go - we have something now - a real historical Jesus - if only we could find him! Get real GDon - there is no Jesus outside of the gospels. Full stop. All that is is make-believe - and its high time the historicists were called out on this subterfuge. GDon, I'm not interested in telling you anything other than is in many of my posts to this forum. If you have not been reading - then :huh:
Quite frankly, I don't give a damn how people thought 'back then'. I really don't. My interest lies in finding a historical core relevant to early Christianity. The rest, as I keep telling you, is secondary. No, for what it's worth to you, I have never read Acharya S. I did read Freke and Gandy some years back and did not find anything in it that was of particular interest to me.

So, no, GDon I'm not about to lay out my own case for the mythicist position - some of my ideas are sprinkled throughout this forum - any more than that will only be set out at my leisure...The mythicist case for a non-historical Jesus does not rest upon my particular point of view. Its a position that does have some history behind it - and a position that will continue to make waves in the future - so stay tuned and eventually you might find something that will cause you to ponder..:constern01:

dog-on

So what. The funny part is that this argument works the other way as well.

Some guy preached end times.

He got executed.

Some other guys deified him.


Disprove it...

GakuseiDon

Look, it does work the other way around as well. The historical Jesus shouldn't be assumed, it needs to be shown as the best fit for the evidence. I would argue that it does, and I'm happy to do that.

There is an old saying: Shit or get off the pot. Time for the mythicists to step up, sit down and excrete their arguments. Do YOU have a case that you would like to argue, dog-on? Let's argue it.

GakuseiDon

Bring it on, Maryhelena, bring it on.

dog-on

Again.

Someone read a savior into the LXX. let's call him Paul.

Later, someone wrote a fictional biography of the savior, let's call him Mark.

So, go ahead...