aa5874

A Jesus worshiper with a Ph.D is not likely to claim that his resurrected Jesus did not ever exist.

There appears to be Jesus worshipers with Ph.Ds who are promoting that Jesus did exist and was RAISED from the dead.

These people are promoting a MYTH as history but call themselves HJers.

The "history" of Jesus is overwhelmingly in the hands of Jesus worshipers with a Ph.D.

I wonder if Jesus worshipers would ever say Jesus was a MYTH even after the RESURRECTION.

Dave31

No, there has never been a clearly defined and explained mythicist position before. Academia has refused to even acknowledge that there is such a thing. That's why I posted it here to share. Ignore Kapyong, he's obsessed with hatred for anything Acharya, like others here. You can watch his head nearly explode any time her name is mentioned, no biases, prejudice or misogyny going on there at all.

Dave31

As aa5874 points out, when it comes to religious studies academia is filled with biases and have no intention of allowing a full investigation into the case for mythicism and the mythicist position. Academia refuses to even acknowledge its existence, that way to can omit it altogether and never have to refute it. This needs to be exposed.

In the post above by ApostateAbe it's important to note the fact that ApostateAbe has never actually read Acharya's work so he cannot be trusted when it comes to her work. AAbe also doesn't seem to have a clue about all the religious special interest groups and lobbyist groups lobbying the gov't and academia to do what they want as they always have. Many of universities BEGAN as seminaries:

spamandham

Of course this is possible, but doesn't this seem more contrived than simply dating this particular text to post Hadrian? 2 Thes is not even generally considered authentically Pauline, so I'm not sure what the hang up is with trying to assign it an early date.

It's anachronistic to propose that people were attributing texts to Paul contemporaneously, so a later date is preferred simply for that reason alone.

ApostateAbe

I don't think that the word, "myth," is the cause of mythicism being ignored in academic circles. Do a search in Google Scholar for jesus christianity myth, and you will get 85,500 results, including Burton L Mack's Who wrote the New Testament?: the making of the Christian myth and Rudolf Bultmann's Jesus Christ and mythology, which are two very big names in NT scholarship. There are at least a few scholar's who have confronted mythicism, and I think that the best explanation is found by accepting the reasons that they give. I'll refer you to my thread that you read already read a month ago: Robert E. Van Voorst explains why scholars rejected mythicism (and their PR problem).

aa5874

It would appear that Robert E. Van Voorst worships Jesus as a God or the son of God, or may believe Jesus is in heaven after he resurrected. It is almost certain that a Jesus worshiper will not claim that the resurrected Jesus he worships did not ever exist.

aa5874

But, I disagree. The Mythicist position is CLEARLY defined and it is that Jesus of the NT did not actually exist as human or a God/man.

MJ clearly means that Jesus of the NT was non-historical.

The only matter that is difficult to resolve is how did the MYTH called Jesus start.

Now, the origin of the MYTH called Jesus the Messiah, offspring of the Holy Ghost, Creator of heaven and earth who was equal to God, walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds, would VARY from writer to writer depending upon the material that each writer have examined at the time of writing and may be modified as more material becomes available.

In any event, the MYTHICIST position is CLEAR. Jesus of the NT was non-historical.

Personally I have a theory of how the MYTH started and it may not even be similar to many MYTHICISTS but my position is CLEAR. Jesus of the NT was an invention similar to the opinion of Julian the Emperor.

"Against the Galileans" BOOK 1
The JESUS MYTH started as a LIE.

Chili

One must be careful with the word 'exist' in that 'if' Jesus was the reborn Joseph he did not exist in the flesh but was the new creation as Joseph after metanoia (his 180 degree turn when he called his shepherds to be his disciples) who so had a radical change of heart (or mind is perhaps better).

Of course I claim that he was just that but it sure would keep Jesus real but not as a human being . . . which he never was without sin, and so what was he to be real but not human? . . . and if he was not human who exactly died? etc.

maryhelena

More 'contrived'? Hardly, it's all interpretation after all - whichever way one wants to go. Sure, the early christian movement would still be developing it's idea so additions to the writings of 'Paul', and others, would likely take place. That's possible. So, it's rather a case of 'take your pick' re whether one is going to look for a literal fulfillment of this particular text - or just understand it as part of the spiritualizing process. A spiritualizing process that is itself based upon earlier historical realities. If this text is really to do with a historical 'man of lawlessnes' - then those early christians never got around to putting a name and date stamp upon it's fulfillment. Seemingly, they were happy to leave it all to our imagination...

avi

Thank you, I share this same perspective...
avi