What Do Mythicists Want?

[stephan happy huller]

Would they be content with an acknowledgement that Jesus might not have existed or are they arguing that the lack of evidence for his existence proves the events described in the gospel don't go back to an actual historical individual?

[Peter Kirby]

Would they be content with an acknowledgement that Jesus might not have existed

Of the two options, this seems closer to the truth. The state of the evidence for the historical existence of Jesus is consistently and egregiously overstated. This leads to the harsh rhetoric against those who doubt that Jesus existed. This leads people to look into the claims of such "overwhelming evidence," and when finding that the evidence really is piss poor, leads to there being more people who doubt that Jesus existed. And what happens when they express that doubt? The state of the evidence is egregiously overstated... et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

If people just said that Jesus was like Odysseus or the Buddha and you can believe in them if you want to do so but who the hell really knows, I think the mythicists have succeeded in establishing the main bone of contention that they have. (And, yes, "mythicist" may be a misnomer, but it's the word that has gained currency.)

... or are they arguing that the lack of evidence for his existence proves the events described in the gospel don't go back to an actual historical individual?

That's a fallacy, but I suppose some commit this fallacy.

[stephan happy huller]

Many go overboard. I agree with what you wrote otherwise

[spin]

What do they want?

Something warm and fuzzy to fill the hole.

---

Isn't this thread in the wrong place? But hey, it's xmas and people get all friendly for a few days, so what the heck.

[Blood]

Would they be content with an acknowledgement that Jesus might not have existed or are they arguing that the lack of evidence for his existence proves the events described in the gospel don't go back to an actual historical individual?

The crux of the problem (no pun intended) is bigger than whether Jesus existed or not. The bigger issue is, to use Spin's eloquent phrase, "the transmutation of literature into history" that has been an ongoing aspect of human consciousness since writing began. The complex and mysterious process by which ideas become tradition, tradition becomes history, and history becomes dogma is so inextricably woven into every aspect of our existence that it would probably be impossible to overcome it even if we wanted to.

[Bernard Muller]

to Blood,

tradition becomes history, and history becomes dogma

I can agree with that, but where do you put Jesus? (at least a human earthly Jesus exists in the gospels and Paul's epistles). He would be either totally fictional OR (according to my research) a real but not divine or exceptional Jew who initiated (unintentionally) Christianity.
Cordially, Bernard

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Would they be content with an acknowledgement that Jesus might not have existed or are they arguing that the lack of evidence for his existence proves the events described in the gospel don't go back to an actual historical individual?

I can speak only for myself obviously. It doesn't matter to me if he existed or not. What does matter to me stems not from existence but he did exist therefore he was the son of god and all the harm that has come and continues to come from his self-appointed priests and preachers. It is a bit like the Septuagint, Yes there is a Babylonian inscription mentioning a King Omri a name also found in the Septuagint ... therefore the Red Sea parted.

So he existed and that does not make him the son of god or any kind of authority on anything. And you cannot pick and choose what is attributed to him and you cannot explain away the parts you do not like just because they disagree with the parts that do because reversing the arguments is equally legitimate. So yes there might by admonitions to peace but there is also the explicit intent to set family members at each others' throats.

The teachings barely rises above what a father might give a young child and no more original than that. There is no moral superiority involved in following this advice to children. None of it is suitable to adult life. People cannot "be as little children" when they have their own children to feed. If you give all to the poor what do your kids eat? It is all total BS for the real world. Without throwing the god part nothing he teaches is worth more than a cursory scan.

And it gets worse. The parables cannot be understood until after he returns from the grave. Without the god part no one understands them so all them them remain gibberish. Or make up your own meaning. There is no real meaning.

Healing the sick? A common preacher trick in his time. Of course he hated amputees like all the rest of the preachers. So are all of the "miracles" properly recognized as street magic in those days, god channel and revival meeting magic these days.

That is the person we are talking about. Whether or not he was real or a creation does not make a bit of difference. What does matter is discouraging people who jump from He lived to the whole son of god shtick.

[stephan happy huller]

Oh God, Hitler is taking over this forum too. First it was Poland, now France. Whence Russia and then Stalingrad?

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Stephan,

Speaking on behalf of all mythicists, we want what Socrates wanted - an apology from every Christian who ever said that Jesus was an historical person, and a nice free place to live and free meals for the rest of our lives.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Would they be content with an acknowledgement that Jesus might not have existed or are they arguing that the lack of evidence for his existence proves the events described in the gospel don't go back to an actual historical individual?

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Oh God, Hitler is taking over this forum too. First it was Poland, now France. Whence Russia and then Stalingrad?

Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ayn Rand!



That should keep your bowels in an uproar for a few more days.