Mythicism: Two Theories

[Sheshbazzar]

cienfuegos posted: "You [John T] also seem to have completely ignored Sheshbazzar's post."...cienfuegos

Nope, it is just that he didn't warrant a response. You may be impressed that he spent 12 hours looking up the Vulgate meaning of the word 'crucify' but it took me less than 12 minutes to look it up in English and Greek.

Now, if Sheshbazzar posted about how 'hook' and 'nailed' are cognates for crucifixion, well then, that would warrant a response.

Please note I also reserve the right not to respond to smart-alack comments.

Sincerely,

John T

My my. An entire 12 minutes you say? Must have been a real strain upon your brain, yes?

I believe words mean things and if people change the basic meaning of words (worse yet, after the fact)

Angels weep. The things you didn't learn. The things you do not comprehend.

Oh well, life is short and I have far more pressing matters to attend to, than addressing the 'depth' of your knowledge.


Sincerely,

Sheshbazzar ha'malak

[neilgodfrey]

Verifiable facts matter not to them but instead only the promotion of their disdain for Christianity.

Yeah, I got it, so why not just admit the obvious?

John T

For others who are genuinely interested in the verifiable facts a survey of who's who among both mythicists and mythicist sympathizers demonstrates that "disdain for Christianity" is definitely NOT a trait that mythicists share. At least two prominent mythicists have even held on to their Christian faith.

In fact some have argued that the last thing anyone who wants to attack Christianity would ever do is to argue mythicism. Some have even said they are simply not interested in what Christians think about the topic and have no wish to involve them.

But anyone who disdains both facts and mythicism would never know this.

[Robert Tulip]

Once the cultural and political powers that be catch up, it magically transforms from mythicism to mainstream.

What do you mean by "it", Peter?

(Cultural or political support for a myth doesn't stop it being myth)

The idea, for example, that Moses never existed. That would not be described as a 'mythicism' today because it is in fact mainstream.

Your linguistics is faulty here Peter. Moses Mythicism is mainstream, but Christ Mythicism is fringe. That does not make Moses Mythicism or Zeus Mythicism or Adam Mythicism or Superman Mythicism any less of a mythicism, when applied to critiquing the views of those who think their chosen deity walked and talked and went to the toilet.

Mythicism is not a word like spastic whose meaning has evolved to require rejection due to perceived connotations. All rejection of claims that fictional beings are real is properly defined as mythicism. Just because some myth believers are such fervent bullies on behalf of their chosen fiction does not justify turning mythicist into a derogatory term.

And anyway, your claim that Moses Mythicism is mainstream is only true for pointy heads.

[MrMacSon]

Verifiable facts matter not to them but instead only the promotion of their disdain for Christianity.

Yeah, I got it, so why not just admit the obvious?

John T

That's a straw man fallacy and a red-herring fallacy.

You keep commenting about motivations but not the primary issue: the roots of Christianity.

[John T]

The original O.P. was about the movement by mythicists in their effort to discredit the two great religions; i.e. Christianity and Islam. The book review was written by Loren Rosson (did I get that name right?) and very informative. Based on her review, I have a lot of new respect for Price,...Carrier not so much.

Thanks for sharing Peter.

Anyhow, instead of praising Carrier's new book I decided to place emphasis on the profound error that Carrier repeatedly makes during his lectures (as found on YouTube) that the origins/roots of Christianity are based on ancient myths. As a typical example of that, I tried to draw attention to a false claim that Carrier makes regarding the myth of Inanna. Even though I provided the link and the exact place in the lecture where Carrier misleads his audience, instead of confirmation of his slight of hand, all I mainly got was the lame excuse that what he really said is not what he really meant to say.

But we all know better than that, don't we?

So, what are the mythicists really trying to do? Are they sincere and should they be treated as a legitimate field in academia as proposed by Acharya S.?

According to Acharya S.: "mythicism serves as a bridge between theism and atheism". However, that is the fallacy of the middle ground; that is, the truth, i.e. mythicism in found in between to the two extremes. But in reality, half way between truth and a lie, is still a lie.

I strongly suspect the bridge that Carrier has built is designed as a one way bridge towards atheism. He is not seeking middle ground but instead seeking to discredit Christianity and facts matter not.

Mythicism is to atheism as intelligent design is to fundamentalism.
So, I ask once again, why pretend otherwise?

John T

[Peter Kirby]

The idea, for example, that Moses never existed. That would not be described as a 'mythicism' today because it is in fact mainstream.

Your linguistics is faulty here Peter. Moses Mythicism is mainstream, but Christ Mythicism is fringe. That does not make Moses Mythicism or Zeus Mythicism or Adam Mythicism or Superman Mythicism any less of a mythicism, when applied to critiquing the views of those who think their chosen deity walked and talked and went to the toilet.

Mythicism is not a word like spastic whose meaning has evolved to require rejection due to perceived connotations. All rejection of claims that fictional beings are real is properly defined as mythicism. Just because some myth believers are such fervent bullies on behalf of their chosen fiction does not justify turning mythicist into a derogatory term.

I'm not justifying anything or turning anything into anything. I am observing usage.

I understand that you may want to rehabilitate the word. My own preference is to have it buried. Labels like this one help shut down real communication. It provides a convenient shorthand for dismissal of doubts about historicity and for pigeonholing the doubters.

And anyway, your claim that Moses Mythicism is mainstream is only true for pointy heads.

Quite.

[andrewcriddle]

On the general question of Inanna's crucifixion my thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=546 may possibly be relevant.

Andrew Criddle

[John T]

On the general question of Inanna's crucifixion my thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=546 may possibly be relevant.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks for sharing that.

It only goes to support what I have been saying all along, that Carrier's version of the myth of Inanna is misleading. When he is done twisting the tale of Inanna to suit his purpose he likes to add the snarky comment: "Sounds like a similar tale we heard before, right?" Well yeah, when you tell it like that how can the ignorant not make the erroneous conclusion that the story of the crucifixion of Jesus was lifted from the myth of Inanna, even though Carrier doesn't come right out and say it, he infers it.

Still, I'm beating a dead horse. Carrier supporters are not going to come out and say what he is doing is wrong, instead they will continue to make excuses for him or pretend it never, ever happened.

John T

[neilgodfrey]

On the general question of Inanna's crucifixion my thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=546 may possibly be relevant.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks for sharing that.

It only goes to support what I have been saying all along, that Carrier's version of the myth of Inanna is misleading. When he is done twisting the tale of Inanna to suit his purpose he likes to add the snarky comment: "Sounds like a similar tale we heard before, right?" Well yeah, when you tell it like that how can the ignorant not make the erroneous conclusion that the story of the crucifixion of Jesus was lifted from the myth of Inanna, even though Carrier doesn't come right out and say it, he infers it.

Still, I'm beating a dead horse. Carrier supporters are not going to come out and say what he is doing is wrong, instead they will continue to make excuses for him or pretend it never, ever happened.

John T

Actually when I first read the Inanna myth years ago when I was a believing Christian I could not help but think of recalling echoes of the Jesus story. I think most who read it do. One will frequently find commentary of some sort to that effect. Mythicism has nothing to do with it.

[Blood]

How could they have known about the Inanna myth? Through a version of Venus and Adonis otherwise lost to us?