The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate

Post by Stephan Huller »

I don't think the current crop of mythcists have grasped the real bottom line. It all comes down to one question- could the Jewish believers in antiquity have accepted the idea that 'God' (i.e. the godhead) was unaware of or wasn't involved in the destruction of the temple. Unlike the first destruction (where there is no surviving literature) the gospel represents nothing more (or less) than proof that the godhead was doing it's job, was (as always) involved in world history. A human Jesus even one born from a virgin obscures that core understanding. The reason the current mythicist crop doesn't see this is because they are little more than (reactionary) atheists trying to disprove that the Bible 'is true' through the implausibility of its 'myth.'. The bottom line is that a supernatural Jesus has to have been the original formulation of Mark or whoever wrote the first gospel. It was a wholly Jewish understanding too one which appealed to many or at least some Jews until the late second century. Don't count on the current crop of mythicists to figure this out. They are too busy 'slaying' religion...
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate

Post by TedM »

I can't follow your point here. Are you saying this?: Because the Jewish people had to have a reason for God to have allowed the temple to be destroyed in the 1st century, they came up with one, a supernatural non-human Jesus who predicted the temple fall and was seen as the replacement for the need of a physical temple. You imply that had the temple not been destroyed there would have been no Christianity. I don't see how this is a bottom line issue in the mythicism debate though. You say a human Jesus obscures that core understanding, but I don't see how it does.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate

Post by Stephan Huller »

If you are religious God is in control of everything. That's why athletes make the sign of the cross before they go on the pitch. It's not that they believe God cares about who wins the soccer game. Now if the religious mind is capable of thinking God already knows the outcome of Argentina Switzerland how did the specifically Jewish mind reconcile the destruction of the temple? The gospel was that historical attempt to reconcile God with history. The end of Judaism was planned by God.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate

Post by Stephan Huller »

There is no explanation in Judaism to explain what happened to the obligation to carry out all the commandments. It just stopped happening. Poof. Then in the late second century this other kind of Judaism reconstituted itself which already presupposes that the time of sacrifices had come to an end without having to explain itself. Even Maimonides just says the time of sacrifices are done. Proto-Christianity (the Christianity before Irenaeus and the present canon) has to be the platform out of which the rabbinical reactionary effort developed. What isn't said often enough is that BOTH Judaism and Christianity develop from the idea that God must have told someone "I allow you to ignore my ordinances which were previously inviolable." Only Christianity preserves the literary context for that radical revision ie the story of the angel who previously spoke with the Patriarchs coming down to prepare humanity for the pending revision of world history.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate

Post by Stephan Huller »

The story of a poor Galilean peasant named Jesus who taught people to be nice to one another (like everyone was previously 'mean') and did magic tricks isn't grand enough to fill the void left by the end of the Law, the end of the Law is after all Jesus consistent message in the gospel ... just ask Tertullian. Only the god who made the original covenant with Moses and the Patriarchs could have had the authority to make that announcement. That's why Christianity has to accept his divinity. That's why the virgin birth had to be invented for those who believed he was human. The god part however is all that was essential.
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate

Post by TedM »

I don't see how any of this relates to a bottom line for the mythicism debate. Sorry. Are you saying that the mythicists are missing the idea that if there was a human Jesus then it only makes sense that he would have to become portrayed as God since that was necessary to explain why the Law had ended? I don't see what the reaction of the Jews in the late 2nd century has to do with anything.
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate

Post by toejam »

But then you still have to deal with the pre-destruction Pauline letters that speak of a bread eating, crucified and buried founder, born in the Davidic line with surviving brother called James...

That the gospels as we have them now were shaped in light of war I have little doubt (Luke especially). But for me, that's not enough to render the whole story as allegory and nothing more.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate

Post by Stephan Huller »

You (Ted) start with the assumption that the story is historical. But let's leave that off the table for the moment. Let's start with the fact that the gospel narrative represents a myth (a narrative can be both or just a myth) developed for some social purpose. That social purpose was certainly explaining or dealing with the destruction of the temple announced by Jesus but retrojected into the past as an announcement or prophesy as the gospel was actually written after 70 CE. There were two groups in antiquity within Christianity. The earliest Christians (the Marcionites) said the announcer was an angel. Later the narrative was recast in terms of a human being. The Marcionites and the earliest Catholic sources read the narrative in terms of the destruction served as the unveiling of the new Law (which is the gospel). This is the common interpretation of the literary (mythical) context of the gospel narrative. There is no debate about this. There is just general ignorance about what the earliest sources actually say.
Last edited by Stephan Huller on Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate

Post by Stephan Huller »

Toejam

Nah. The Marcionites said the same person wrote both Gospel and Apostle. The Catholic canon and all its historical reconstruction came after that original understanding.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: The Real Bottom Line in the Mythicism Debate

Post by Stephan Huller »

The "bottom line" is that the gospel is really about the destruction of the temple. Mark isn't even concerned with explaining who Jesus was, BECAUSE he's really only interested in reframing the events of 70 CE.
Post Reply