Toto

Modern gnostic, neo-pagan, and theosophist groups seem to like the idea of a mythical Jesus. Freke and Gandy are neo-pagans who think that the ancient gnostics were actually mythicists, although I know you don't agree with that.

rlogan

Oh?

That is one of the sorriest arguments I've ever seen posted.

Iasion

Greetings,

Hmmm..

Doesn't a "mythical Jesus" mean a Jesus who does not, and did not, exist - either historically or spiritually.

But,
theosophists (and some other neo-gnostics) take the view that Jesus is (now) a higher being (the "Master Jesus" to theosophists), after his sojourn on earth.

In this sense they believe Jesus DOES exist - as a spiritual being living on some higher plane (or astrally in some secret vale in Tibet according to some?)

[ The Christos is seen by some as yet another, even higher entity (the idea being that the Christos "overshadowed" the Master Jesus for a short time.) This seperation of Jesus and Christ seems to be a fairly recent idea of theosophy, although the adoptionists did argue Jesus only later became SonOfGod. ]


Perhaps we should talk about a SJ - "Spiritual Jesus" rather than a Mythical Jesus.

I think the gnostics would be better classed as SJ than MJ - they believe all sorts of weird spiritual ideas about this Iesous Christos being from the higher planes.



Iasion

McD

For at least the second time: NO MOTHER-FUCKING MIND READING WAS INVOLVED.

That is not anger. That is all caps with the MF word used as one uses a highlighter in a textbook, just in case, in the very near future you once again forget that I never claimed to have read anyone's mind, nor did I even imply it. That charge is getting really, really fucking old.

My conclusion was based on extensive conversation and blunt questions. I was the "new" atheist. These were the old guys who had been arouind the block a few times.

For at least the second time: I strongly suspect that at least 3 of these 6 or so MJist atheists I am referring to were not atheists but pissed off theists. I was too new to atheism at the time to realize it, but thinking upon it years later, I realize that it must have been the case.

So you would be offended about something that I could not possibly be held responsible for. In that example, it could not possibly be my fault that the only three atheists I ever met were dopes, and based on what I said, you would be jumping to the conclusion that I was generalizing, just like you jumped to the conclusion that I was generalizing here.

My involvement in this thread boils down to several unfortunate things:

1) I am on medication which makes me slightly less articulate than usual. I pains me to even type these words, because I hate excuses. Remnants of my military brainwashing.

2) Several people involved were more interested in being offended than they were in paying attention to what I actually said.

3) One person here thinks that my idea of a bullet-proof argument against MJism is "Well, 20 fucking years ago, I met a few who were kooks"

4) One HJer I know, who I believe is a former MJer, and is lurking on this thread, told me that these people clearly have not met the lunatic fringe of the MJ movement. He personally feels that the lunatic fringe of the MJ movement is the majority.

5) And blah blah blah. Suddenly this is boring, and I want to go have sex with my wife.

McD

That is not an argument. Don't you know what an argument is? rlogan your habit of not paying attention has embarrassed you again. Please try to keep up.

The o/p asked us to submit the reason(s) that we personally turned from one position to the other. That is what I did. The o/p did not ask to submit arguments and I was very careful not to do so. I mentioned the James the brother of Jesus thing early on in the thread, and I defended it, but you must have noticed that I didn't even defend it very strenuously. That wasn't even an argument, and it was far closer to an argument than "I once met a few nutjob MJers"

But, if you need to insist that it was an argument, go ahead. I can't be responsible for your proclivities.

rlogan

Whatever you say.


heh. Can't seem to admit the argument you actually made. I have quoted your argument above. Refer to it again.

We have you sticking by the same stupid argument I quoted.

Your "defense" seems to be that the unnamed persons you met 20 years ago really are kooks -

Apparently you do not have the faculties to understand that no matter how stupid or kooky these alleged people are, your argument is still ridiculous.



Well, I meant to mention that one former HJer that is lurking here told me that the HJ club required more than homosexuality to gain entry.

He said that you have to have sex with chickens and registger (*gasp*) as a republican.

McD

Actually, we don't. PLEASE try to pay attention! I am the one on medication here, why are you the one having a problem following the conversation?

Toto

Let me suggest that this conversation end, and we wait for McDuffie to get off his medication and actually make an argument that he will stand behind.

McD

I will be on this medication the rest of my life. In about two months, the side effects of making me a bit spacey will wear off, but there was no need for that comment.

I amended my mistatement 58 fucking posts ago, and have consistently stood by the revision. The only person that I thought didn't notice it was rlogan, but apparently you didn't either.

This is not an argument thread anyway. This is a thread about the reasons that we personally went from one side to the other. I outlined those reasons, and certain people who insist on being angry, whether they have a reason or not, descended upon me.

This is my impression of the vocal minority of the JMers on this forum:

Really, that is what this entire thread, or at least my involvement in it, boils down to.

Tharmas

If I can jump in here (it’s almost off topic at this point!) and return to the question raised in the OP, I’d like to offer my own experience with myself, as opposed to my opinions about what I suspect the psychological motivations of other people might be or why I misspell the way I do.

Apologies for the intrusion.

I was raised in a very liberal Christian church and pretty much came to look for rational explanations behind the stories by the time I was a young adult. My university education in English Literature required a familiarity with the Bible studied as literature.

Other factors in my particular fields of study contributed, such as my understanding of the development of myth and the growth of legends over time, my familiarity with narrative technique, my familiarity with Gnostic texts and other roughly contemporary mystic religions such as neo-Platonism, Hermeticism, and the Kabala.

I felt I had an adequate context to judge the appearance of Christianity, and I saw the historical Jesus, located in a specific historical time and place by the Gospel stories, fading into a more and more indefinite and shadowy figure.

Up to this point I had concentrated on the Gospels themselves, and particularly the Synoptics, when trying to locate Jesus in time and space.

The real turning point came when I read one of Wells books about twelve or fifteen years ago (actually I forget which one). Wells invited me to read the New Testament in the correct order, that is, the accepted Pauline epistles first, and then the Gospels.

That was a revelation (no pun intended) for me. Not so much for the reasons that have been argued already in the thread (silences, etc.). What struck me so forcibly was the unbelievable time compression. Here was Paul dealing with the everyday affairs of a very large church that stretched from Asia to Rome, with details like how to pay preachers and what to do about false doctrine and elders and such, and all within twenty or twenty-five years of the supposed death of Jesus. It was inconceivable that such a large church could have grown up in such an amazingly short time span.

The traditional explanation – the miracle of the Pentecost – was not satisfactory to me for obvious reasons, although it did show that at least Luke realized (in Acts) that he had this same problem and that it required some explanation!

What I'm thinking about now is a church (Essene? John/Baptist?) that already existed and most likely had existed for some time when Paul came along. I like Burton Mack’s analysis of the Gospels as yielding historical levels from various pre-existing traditions as an explanation.

I would speculate then that there was no single individual who said all or most of the things in the Gospels and was crucified by Pilate. However most of those things were said by different rabbis more or less around that time and some of them were executed, if not crucified, if not by Pilate.

Mark put it all together. Like most great fiction writers (e.g. Shakespeare) he was a very good thief.

And also like most great fiction writers, he wrote something so good that you find yourself saying, over and over, "If it was fiction, he wouldn't have said that..."

P.S. And then yes indeed the end of the world as they knew it did indeed happen.