Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The Lost Number · 08-11-2002, 10:43 PM

Everything I've seen and heard from others, up until talking to a few people here, indicates the Christ Myth is essentially a belief that there was no real, historical Jesus of any sort, divine, mortal, or otherwise.

However, a few at this forum have claimed this is only partially correct - some Christ Mythers definately believe that, but others do not, and allow for a historical Jesus, except claim that most all early Christian claims about him (especially the gospels) are false. I happen to agree with some parts of this philosophy, in that I do not believe Jesus was divine or supernatural, and clearly many of the stories about him are false. However, I don't call myself a "Christ Myther". In addition, I believe a considerable number of early Christian writings about him and events dependent upon his existence (such as the disciples running away after he was aprehended, and also his being crucified) are true (if you wish to ask why, then I ask you to please start a different topic).

My question is this: In general, how much of the NT and related, early Christian writings specifically about Jesus--my guess is that this would probably not usually apply to every little, minute detail of Jesus, but instead to the larger, foundational teachings, such as his crucifixion--does one have to believe are false, while at the same time believing a historical Jesus existed, in order to be considered a "Christ Myther"?

Peter Kirby · 08-11-2002, 10:48 PM

Purely off the cuff, how about this: did the Kephas mentioned in the Pauline epistles know a person named Jesus who got executed in the first century of our era? If the answer is no, then you just might be a Christ Myther.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan · 08-12-2002, 01:07 AM

Peter:

Hammer. Nail. Head.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Ted Hoffman · 08-12-2002, 01:21 AM

Lost Number

Quote:

My question is this: In general, how much of the NT and related, early Christian writings specifically about Jesus--my guess is that this would probably not usually apply to every little, minute detail of Jesus, but instead to the larger, foundational teachings, such as his crucifixion--does one have to believe are false, while at the same time believing a historical Jesus existed, in order to be considered a "Christ Myther"?

I repeat, its not about quantity.

Ted Hoffman · 08-12-2002, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby:
Purely off the cuff, how about this: did the Kephas mentioned in the Pauline epistles know a person named Jesus who got executed in the first century of our era? If the answer is no, then you just might be a Christ Myther.
best,
Peter Kirby

I have difficulty understanding why Peter would compare belief in a mythical Jesus to whether Cephas knew Jesus. I fail to grasp the relationship between the two.
But to answer the question (expecting a "no" or "yes" is oversimplifying the issue/ question),
we cannot tell, from the bible what Kephas knew about Jesus.
Paul says Christ appeared to Kephas/Cephas . How Paul knew that is not written (ie whether Christ himself told Paul through a vision that he appeared to a man called Cephas, whether Cephas told Paul himself, or whether a third party told Paul that christ appeared to Cephas).

Even the bible says that when Jesus appeared post-resurrection, many who hitertho knew him did not recognise him (luke 24:16), so its possible that Kephas (if such a man existed), could have seen a resurrected Jesus without knowing that he was seeing a resurrected person who was also "the Christ".

Pauls story has lots of loose ends and does not match with that of the evangelists. Gerald Sigal, in <a href="http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/j4j-2000/html/reflib/resurrection094.html" target="_blank">Whom does the New Testament say was the first person to see Jesus after his supposed resurrection?</a> writes:

Quote:

Does Cephas refer to Simon Peter, who at times was referred to as Cephas? Paul's words indicate a chronological sequence of appearances after the resurrection, with first Cephas and then the surviving "twelve" meeting Jesus. However, at no time is the apostle Simon Peter, under any name, mentioned in the New Testament as seeing Jesus prior to the alleged appearance to the eleven apostles together. It may be that Paul was making use of a legend circulating in Christian circles, which Luke later incorporated into his Gospel, that someone named Simon saw Jesus (Luke 24:34). Paul, for unspecified reasons, may have claimed that this Simon referred to Simon Peter. However, it is evident from a study of Luke 24:34 that the Simon who allegedly met Jesus was not Simon Peter since the latter is one of "the eleven."

godfry n. glad · 08-12-2002, 08:22 AM

To Lost Number:

Forgive my foray into the pedantic, but I think you need to keep your terminology straight.

First, Christ and Jesus are not necessarily the same thing, although they may be in the minds of Christians and their apologists. Those colloquially referred to as "Christ Mythers" are, in most cases, really "Jesus Mythers", in that they question the historical basis for the existence of an actual Jesus underlying the theological polemics of the New Testament. Remember, Jesus is the name of the person (often rendered as Yeshua ben Yusef) and "Christ" is the title, meaning messiah, or mesach in Hebrew, which carries the meaning of "the anointed" in Judeo-Christian tradition.

By this, we could count anyone who denies the divinity of Jesus (that he is the "anointed of the Lord") and that he is the prophecied savior of Israel or any other person or nation, thus denying him the title "Christ" could be called a "Christ Myther", including those who accept the germinal historical Jesus of the Jesus Seminar or other liberal Christological viewpoints.

The real division comes from those who question the historicity of the reputed Jesus personality that underlies the gospel Jesus. Those would be the "Jesus Mythers". Even George A. Wells, the "Christ Mythers" leading proponent for the past couple of decades, admits that there _MAY_ have been a germinal personality buried under all the accreted myth of the gospel, but that he would have little, if anything, in common with the constructed personality of the gospels' Christ Jesus.

I hope this helps clarify the discussion for you.

Best,

godfry n. glad

One of the last sane · 08-12-2002, 02:58 PM

What would you call a person who thinks the character "Jesus Christ" is in fact made up from anecdotes about various people who were wandering around Palestine claiming to be the Messiah, plus some outright fiction. That's what I believe. I think the same is true for the Arthurian legends and the legends of Robin Hood.

lcb · 08-12-2002, 05:35 PM

"these reports of dozens of German divisions hidden in the ardennes forrest are a myth,designed to scare us into pulling units away from defense of the maginot line"....ten points for the French General who said this, and also the French General who lost WWII in a matter of weeks....."everyone knows you can't launch a mechanized offensive thorugh the ardennes forrest..." !

Vorkosigan · 08-12-2002, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lcb:
"these reports of dozens of German divisions hidden in the ardennes forrest are a myth,!

So what are you saying, that Christ-mythers are about to be overrun by German armored divisions?

The Lost Number · 08-12-2002, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:


So what are you saying, that Christ-mythers are about to be overrun by German armored divisions?

Only the ones who live near the Ardennes Forest.

08-11-2002, 10:43 PM	#1
The Lost Number Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Somewhere in time Posts: 27	Exactly what is a "Christ Myther"? Everything I've seen and heard from others, up until talking to a few people here, indicates the Christ Myth is essentially a belief that there was no real, historical Jesus of any sort, divine, mortal, or otherwise. However, a few at this forum have claimed this is only partially correct - some Christ Mythers definately believe that, but others do not, and allow for a historical Jesus, except claim that most all early Christian claims about him (especially the gospels) are false. I happen to agree with some parts of this philosophy, in that I do not believe Jesus was divine or supernatural, and clearly many of the stories about him are false. However, I don't call myself a "Christ Myther". In addition, I believe a considerable number of early Christian writings about him and events dependent upon his existence (such as the disciples running away after he was aprehended, and also his being crucified) are true (if you wish to ask why, then I ask you to please start a different topic). My question is this: In general, how much of the NT and related, early Christian writings specifically about Jesus--my guess is that this would probably not usually apply to every little, minute detail of Jesus, but instead to the larger, foundational teachings, such as his crucifixion--does one have to believe are false, while at the same time believing a historical Jesus existed, in order to be considered a "Christ Myther"?

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

08-11-2002, 10:48 PM	#2
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Purely off the cuff, how about this: did the Kephas mentioned in the Pauline epistles know a person named Jesus who got executed in the first century of our era? If the answer is no, then you just might be a Christ Myther. best, Peter Kirby

08-12-2002, 01:07 AM	#3
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Peter: Hammer. Nail. Head. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

08-12-2002, 08:22 AM	#6
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	To Lost Number: Forgive my foray into the pedantic, but I think you need to keep your terminology straight. First, Christ and Jesus are not necessarily the same thing, although they may be in the minds of Christians and their apologists. Those colloquially referred to as "Christ Mythers" are, in most cases, really "Jesus Mythers", in that they question the historical basis for the existence of an actual Jesus underlying the theological polemics of the New Testament. Remember, Jesus is the name of the person (often rendered as Yeshua ben Yusef) and "Christ" is the title, meaning messiah, or mesach in Hebrew, which carries the meaning of "the anointed" in Judeo-Christian tradition. By this, we could count anyone who denies the divinity of Jesus (that he is the "anointed of the Lord") and that he is the prophecied savior of Israel or any other person or nation, thus denying him the title "Christ" could be called a "Christ Myther", including those who accept the germinal historical Jesus of the Jesus Seminar or other liberal Christological viewpoints. The real division comes from those who question the historicity of the reputed Jesus personality that underlies the gospel Jesus. Those would be the "Jesus Mythers". Even George A. Wells, the "Christ Mythers" leading proponent for the past couple of decades, admits that there _MAY_ have been a germinal personality buried under all the accreted myth of the gospel, but that he would have little, if anything, in common with the constructed personality of the gospels' Christ Jesus. I hope this helps clarify the discussion for you. Best, godfry n. glad

08-12-2002, 02:58 PM	#7
One of the last sane Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: hereabouts Posts: 734	What would you call a person who thinks the character "Jesus Christ" is in fact made up from anecdotes about various people who were wandering around Palestine claiming to be the Messiah, plus some outright fiction. That's what I believe. I think the same is true for the Arthurian legends and the legends of Robin Hood.

08-12-2002, 05:35 PM	#8
lcb Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: washington d.c. Posts: 224	"these reports of dozens of German divisions hidden in the ardennes forrest are a myth,designed to scare us into pulling units away from defense of the maginot line"....ten points for the French General who said this, and also the French General who lost WWII in a matter of weeks....."everyone knows you can't launch a mechanized offensive thorugh the ardennes forrest..." !

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.