Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 09-29-2011, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

But the fact remains that the heresiologists searched out and destroyed the Gnostic Gospels and Acts because they were LISTED on the Index of Prohibited Books because they were deemed heretical by the heresiologists. At the moment we do not really know WHY the Gnostic Gospels and Acts were deemed heretical - but the fact is they were.

Sure, but unless it's for NEP/SO reasons, I'm not especially curious, in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I think so, so long as you are willing to substitute the more general and common term "unbelievers" for mythicists. You need to read what the general comments are about the entire NHL on an overall basis.

I don't think I can. 'Unbelievers' could refer to not believing in......lots of things, such as....that Jesus was the messiah, or that he didn't rise, or....lots of things. I'm only specifically interested, here, in NEP/SO unbeliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I see the Gospel of Thomas as an attempt to preserve a series of pagan wisdom sayings by placing them into the mouth of the official state monotheistic God represented by the encrypted written form of Jesus (J_S in Greek and I_S in Coptic).

This, then, is your answer to my question.

Sorry, I think you are stretching credulity. The text does not say that. Even if you want to take 'IS' to mean 'God' (and I have no idea why you would feel you could do that), I have already, surely, even in two quotes, showed that the text describes things like 'the living one, in your presence, not the dead'. If you really want to read it a certain (to me, unlikely) way, I can't stop you, but personally, I think it's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

And as such, quotations from other parts of the NHC don't cut it for me. I think the ones you've used already (forgive me if I'm wrong in saying this) are basically ambiguities, aren't they?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Eusebius is seruiously concerned about the UNBELIEVERS. These people were the worst heretics because for various reasons, just like mythicists.....

Whoa. What mythicists?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

My personal opinion is that the earliest mythicists/gnostics RIDICULED the books of the new testament like it was going out of style, by authoring their own stories. The Gospel of Thomas is an exception rather than a rule. Most of the other Gnostic Gospels, and certainly all of the Gnostic Acts, ridicule the characters found in the canonical books.

Fair enough, but it's in there. And I don't buy it as NEP/SO.

gurugeorge · 09-29-2011, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

My mistake probably comes from having Doherty too much in mind when using the word 'mythicist'.

Yes - Doherty's done some absolutely fantastic work digging around in this area, but his theory is not definitive of mythicism, nor was Wells' before him.

There are many options, the broadest being simply "ahistorical to us modern-day rationalists" (which could still be compatible with "historical to early Christians" in any number of ways).

Of course the best theory, and the least offensive to Ockham, is mine

- right at its very first roots, simply a change in the definition of "Messiah" ("Christ") for a small Messianic sect, placing him in their relative past, rather than their relative future. A wizard wheeze that left hostages to fortune.

archibald · 09-29-2011, 10:24 AM

Isn't there a maxim about wizard wheezes needing wizardly good evidence?

Yes, I agree Occam would prefer yours to Doherty's, but not to mine. Sorry. I've spoken to his sublunar avatar just this afternoon, and he's confirmed this.

mountainman · 09-29-2011, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Eusebius is seruiously concerned about the UNBELIEVERS. These people were the worst heretics because for various reasons, just like mythicists.....

Whoa. What mythicists?

I added alot more to my post while you replied to an earlier version.
If the question is not answered there, reask it again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

My personal opinion is that the earliest mythicists/gnostics RIDICULED the books of the new testament like it was going out of style, by authoring their own stories. The Gospel of Thomas is an exception rather than a rule. Most of the other Gnostic Gospels, and certainly all of the Gnostic Acts, ridicule the characters found in the canonical books.

Fair enough, but it's in there. And I don't buy it as NEP/SO.

What does this NEP/SO thing mean?

mountainman · 09-29-2011, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I think so, so long as you are willing to substitute the more general and common term "unbelievers" for mythicists. You need to read what the general comments are about the entire NHL on an overall basis.

I don't think I can. 'Unbelievers' could refer to not believing in......lots of things, such as....that Jesus was the messiah, or that he didn't rise, or....lots of things. I'm only specifically interested, here, in NEP/SO unbeliefs.

What?

archibald · 09-29-2011, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I added alot more to my post while you replied to an earlier version.
If the question is not answered there, reask it again.

No prob. I will read it later. Going offline now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

What does this NEP/SO thing mean?

A couple of posts ago, gurugeorge quite rightly pointed out that 'mythicist' is not the best term. He has a hytothesis that Jesus WAS universally thought of as 'earthly', but that he didn't actually exist, like, say, Sherlock Holmes (I think), so I switched to 'non-existent/earthly personage' (NEP) heresies or 'spiritual only' (SO) heresies.

Btw, I'm not trying to deliberately clutter up the already long list of semantic terms and phrases or take credit for inventing a new one, I'm just trying to be more specific. If anyone has a better way of putting it..........

mountainman · 09-29-2011, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Hm. I think you are right. I really should have said 'NEP (non-existent/earthly personage) heresies' or 'SO (spiritual only) heresies' in the OP, because that is what I meant.

Heretics were characterized by their unbelief.
Why should this unbelief not be total?

You need to deal with the source material.
The Constantine Bible was ridiculed at its reception in the east.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eusebius

"the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.

archibald · 09-29-2011, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Hm. I think you are right. I really should have said 'NEP (non-existent/earthly personage) heresies' or 'SO (spiritual only) heresies' in the OP, because that is what I meant.

Heretics were characterized by their unbelief.

You need to deal with the source material.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eusebius

"the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.

But....this could refer to something other than 'spiritual only'. I already said that.

archibald · 09-29-2011, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

He has a hytothesis that Jesus WAS universally thought of as 'earthly', but that he didn't actually exist, like, say, Sherlock Holmes (I think),.....

Sorry, not Sherlock Holmes. George, who would you suggest?

William Tell would be a better one, I think*. King Arthur? Or, if we are to stick to religious/supernatural analogies....a famous elf, perhaps?

*Actually, I have to admit that I wasn't keen on Toto citing this one a while back, but since then I came across something which suggested William Tell is still thought of, by some, as historical.

Edit: in fact:

'William Tell lives on as a hero in popular culture. He is still a powerful identification figure, and according to a 2004 survey, 60% of the Swiss believe that he existed[16].'

[16] refers to: ^ According to a 2004 survey of 620 participants performed by the LINK-Institut of Lucerne for CoopZeitung. 58% of those asked held that Tell was historical, compared to 29% who held that Tell was unhistorical.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tell#Veneration

mountainman · 09-29-2011, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Hm. I think you are right. I really should have said 'NEP (non-existent/earthly personage) heresies' or 'SO (spiritual only) heresies' in the OP, because that is what I meant.

Heretics were characterized by their unbelief.

You need to deal with the source material.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eusebius

"the sacred matters of inspired teaching
were exposed to the most shameful ridicule
in the very theaters of the unbelievers.

But....this could refer to something other than 'spiritual only'. I already said that.

I dont understand what you are saying.

Quote:

My mistake probably comes from having Doherty too much in mind when using the word 'mythicist'.

The myth spectrum also includes pious fiction (Option #8). My mistake comes from having pious fiction too much in mind when using the word mythicist.

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

09-29-2011, 10:24 AM	#53
archibald Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,305	Isn't there a maxim about wizard wheezes needing wizardly good evidence? Yes, I agree Occam would prefer yours to Doherty's, but not to mine. Sorry. I've spoken to his sublunar avatar just this afternoon, and he's confirmed this.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.