Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave31 · 05-23-2011, 09:18 AM

Here's a comment from Wiki's Jesus myth theory:

Quote:

"Acharya S maintains the position that the canonical gospels represent a middle to late 2nd-century creation utilizing Old Testament "prophetic" scriptures as a blueprint, in combination with a collage of other, older Pagan and Jewish concepts, and that Christianity was thereby fabricated in order to compete with the other popular religions of the time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

Quote:

"There are two simple insights to keep in mind when it comes to the mythicist position:

1. When the mythological layers of the story are removed, there is no core to the onion.

2. A composite of 20 people is no one.

"Even if you could find some guy there named "Jesus" who said a few things, the New Testament character is not him, if all the rest of the story is myth. Indeed, we know that there were several Jesuses saying things, including both the author and editor of the pre-Christian text the "Wisdom of Jesus" or "Ecclesiasticus." In that text we have two Jesuses who said things - some of which closely resemble sayings in the New Testament - are these two Jesuses the "one historical Jesus" people are looking for? No."

- Acharya S
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/...p=18685#p18685

Quote:

"...when the mythological layers of the gospel story are removed, there remains no core to the onion, no “real person” to point to as found in the evemerist position. To put it another way, a composite of 20 people, whether mythical, historical or both, is no one. This perspective can be called “mythicism” or the “mythicist position,” which is defined as:

The Mythicist Position:

"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not “real people” but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called “astromythology” or “astrotheology.”

"As a major example of the mythicist position, it is determined that various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon and Jesus Christ, among other entities, in reality represent mythological figures along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."

- Christ in Egypt (or via: amazon.co.uk), page 12

These articles below help give further explanation.

Evemerist vs. Mythicist Position

The Mythicist Position

Rebuttal to Historian Dr. Chris Forbes

* Let's bring out into the open the fact that it is not a requirement for theologians, biblical or New Testament PhD candidates to investigate the case for mythicism. So, when NT scholars are only narrowly focused on the NT, they are missing a huge piece of the puzzle. I am not convinced that Dr. Ehrman (and many others) has figured that out yet.

Oh, there is a thread here on the mythicist position

Chaucer · 05-23-2011, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Matthew and Luke, and I suppose John, recognized Mark as fiction

So,
Matthew Luke and John realised it was fiction merely years or decades later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Is it really his contention that for more than a thousand years everyone mistook works of fiction to be attempts to set down real events in the life of a real person?

Oh, now you say no-one knew it was fiction for a 1000 years ?

Which is it?

K.

It's very obvious that Steve is asking if this is seriously any myther's position, not presenting this as his own at all.

Chaucer

dog-on · 05-24-2011, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

So,
Matthew Luke and John realised it was fiction merely years or decades later.

Oh, now you say no-one knew it was fiction for a 1000 years ?

Which is it?

K.

It's very obvious that Steve is asking if this is seriously any myther's position, not presenting this as his own at all.

Chaucer

I think the answer to this question is actually extent within the early writings themselves.

It seems that the writers believed things were true simply because the scriptures, (OT) based on their interpretations, proved them to be true. Just take some time and read some of the arguments...

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.