Denying a Jesus in the Flesh is not necessarily the same as mythicism

[ABuddhist]

Neither have I read the book in question; I am merely repeating what I have read about Laurie at the following link: https://vridar.org/whos-who-among-mythi ... agnostics/ .

But as a Buddhist, it baffles me that you would be so baffled that one could be a mythicist and a Christian.

And there lies the problem, as a Buddhist you do not understand the basics of Christianity. You don't have to believe it but you should take the time to understand it. You should also try to understand why you gravitate to those who mislead you regarding the plain meaning of the gospel.

Here, let me help you understand.

1John 4: 1-3

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God: for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that is coming; and now it is already in the world.

1. The author of 1 John implies that claims opposite to what he defined as correct (namely, that Jesus had not come in the Flesh) were being made - and Docetistic Christian sects suggests that such claims were made. Dismissing non-correct claims about Jesus as demonic is a classic sectarian tactic - but why should we believe it?

2. Actually, I was a Christian in former years.

Leaving these issues aside, Buddhism makes much more sense to me than Christianity. With Buddhism, one has to accept as basic the idea that people have suffering/stress/unsatisfactoriness, that this suffering/stress/unsatisfactoriness has an origin, and by engaging in certain practices, one can reduce or eliminate suffering/stress/unsatisfactoriness. A belief in rebirth, although difficult for some Buddhists to accept (I accept it however), is arguably not essential to be a good Buddhist because by applying the Buddha's teachings, one reduces sufferings here and now.

In contrast, in order to be a Christian, one must believe strange teachings: that there is a supreme uncreated creator god; that this uncreated creator god cares about people; that this uncreated creator god is all-loving, despite engaging in violent actions in the bible; that this uncreated creator god, despite being all-powerful and all-loving, has created an imperfect world in which people, due either to their own misdeeds or the misdeeds of the first man or both, will, after they die, suffer an eternity in a hell-realm absent the supreme creator god's intervention; that this uncreated creator god has offered, as the only way to avoid this eternity in a hell-realm for humans (and how this can be reconciled with his love I know not), only one way to avoid this fate; that this uncreated creator god's one way to avoid this fate involved his sending his son to die one death (in contrast, Amitabha Buddha spended billions of billions of years accumulating merit through good deeds before being able to offer salvation to those with faith in him); that this uncreated creator god's son's death must be believed in by all people, regardless of their virtue or non-virtue, in order for them to avoid an eternity in a hell-realm; that this uncreated creator god's son must be believed in in the right way in terms of understanding his relationship to his father and his human/divine nature(s) - otherwise, faith in the wrong kind of uncreated creator god's son will condemn one to an eternity in a hell-realm.

2. The Christians' scriptures ensure that one cannot distinguish between guidance from evil spirits and guidance from YHWH. Consider the following.

It is not enough to say that the spirit has never caused one to do things that others would condemn as wicked. YHWH's spirit caused Samuel to kill Agag the Amelekite when the Amelekite was a prisoner who had been spared from death by the Isaraelite government. Note that I am not arguing that the act of killing a prisoner who has been spared death is inherently immoral - YHWH wanted all Amelekites even unto their babies to be killed by Israelites, so killing Agag the Amelekite while he was a prisoner who had not been sentenced to death was the morally right thing to do according to divine command theory. However, this story rather suggests that it is not enough to say that a spirit may be known through its fruits because if a modern Christian were to kill a prisoner who has been spared death, then that Christians claim to have been acting through YHWH's spirit would be dismissed, do not you agree? The same applies even more strongly to a person who kills thirty men in order to steal their clothes in order to pay off a debt. But Samson killed 30 Philistine men in a non-military situation (affairs were peaceful enough that he married a Philistine) when YHWH's spirit came upon him in order to . Many Christians would say that the Christian had been possessed by a demon, and others would say that the person is mentally ill or just evil. Yet biblically speaking it is possible to be possessed or guided by YHWH's spirit to do something that would, but for divine command theory, be regarded as a manifestation of human evilness (and possibly demonic possession).

It is not enough to say that the spirit has properties (appearance, etc.) that are associated with good spirits (angels, etc.), because Satan masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14).

It is not enough to say that the spirit is associated with prophecies and miracles, because such things are said to be performed by teachers of false religions also (Deuteronomy 13:1–5). Incidentally, this injunction is found in similar form in the Buddhist Kevaṭṭa Sutta (DN 11).

It is not enough to say that the spirit speaks the truth - in the Book of Job, Satan speaks the truth, and in the gospels demons speak the truth when they identify Jesus.

It is not enough to say that the spirit is truthfully saying that it is following YHVH's orders, because Satan in the Book of Job is following YHVH's orders.

It is not enough to say that the spirit is truthfully saying that it comes from YHVH with a revelation, because YHVH sometimes sends lying spirits into people, as with the story of Micaiah ben Imlah in 1 Kings 22:1-38 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11.

[MrMacSon]

Mythicists preach; Jesus did not exist, just like Isis or Zeus.

Hardly any mythicists preach, if indeed any. They might propose or even argue the proposition. Some do so very badly.

[MrMacSon]

That having been said, some types of Christian docetists (whom we have no record about) may have been mythicists.

I’m not so sure we have no record of the early Christian docetists you seem to be referring to. We’re only beginning to fully qualify and quantify early Christian groups previously dismissed and cast aside as heretics and “gnostics”.

But this does not mean that they would have denied that Jesus was a saviour; rather, they would have held him to be an exclusively otherworldly, if not heavenly, saviour figure, like modern Buddhists devoted to Amitabha Buddha, a Buddha whose career dated from before Earth came into existence

Yes. Even Justin Martyr argues his Jesus Christ existed before the Earth came into existence.

[ABuddhist]

Yes. Even Justin Martyr argues his Jesus Christ existed before the Earth came into existence.

Ah, but such a claim is compatible with historical Jesus, mythical Jesus, and docetistic Jesus. After all, Jesus is presented as some type of avatar of the world's creator in most Christian sects, and even many gnostics apparently presented him as a representative of a god older than the world's creator.

[MrMacSon]

Jesus is presented as some type of avatar of the world's creator in most Christian sects, and even many gnostics apparently presented him as a representative of a god older than the world's creator.

Sure. I had those christian-'gnostics' in mind when I wrote "Justin Martyr argues his Jesus Christ existed before the Earth came into existence" [italics emphasis added]

How do you define "historical Jesus" ?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Additionally, not all atheists e.g. Dr. Ehrman are mythicists but all mythicists, Richard Carrier et al. are atheists.

This is false. There are Christian mythicists, Thomas L. Brodie is still a Catholic priest. I think Freke and Gandy are too. We should not assume that Christians are incapable of critical thought. Jesus mythcism has nothing to do with atheism. It is irrelevant to atheism whether there was a historical Jesus or not. I am not quite persuaded to mythicism personally (I would call myself a very tentative minimal historicist), but this idea that mythicism is atheist polemic makes no sense because a historical Jesus is no problem for atheism.

Mythcists don't "preach" anything either. It sounds like you have little actual knowledge about the subject.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

And there lies the problem, as a Buddhist you do not understand the basics of Christianity.

There is no such thing as "the basics of Christianity," just a billion and a half different individuals each carrying their own set of "basics" around with them.

[GakuseiDon]

The American Mythicist William Benjamin Smith noted this curious claim by Naassenes:

We have heard his voice, but we have not seen his form.

Pseudo-Hyppolytus, 5.8.14

Hence supporting the idea that the original "docetism" was only the mere feature of the Risen Jesus, a ghost without flesh by definition.

Note that the Naassenes hated YHWH.

Interesting, but can you please give the context to that? Does that quote even refer to Jesus?

Googling the quote, I found this: Hippolytus, "Refutation of all heresies", Book 5, Chapter 3 (so not matching your reference, so I might have the wrong one):
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ytus5.html

This, he says, the Thracians who dwell around Haemus, and the Phrygians similarly with the Thracians, denominate Corybas, because, (though) deriving the beginning of his descent from the head above and from the unportrayed brain, and (though) permeating all the principles of the existing state of things, (yet) we do not perceive how and in what manner he comes down. This, says he, is what is spoken: "We have heard his voice, no doubt, but we have not seen his shape." For the voice of him that is set apart and portrayed is heard; but (his) shape, which descends from above from the unportrayed one,--what sort it is, nobody knows. It resides, however, in an earthly mould, yet no one recognises it.

Is there another quote which I've missed? If so, I'd love to understand the context.

[John T]

Additionally, not all atheists e.g. Dr. Ehrman are mythicists but all mythicists, Richard Carrier et al. are atheists.

This is false. There are Christian mythicists, Thomas L. Brodie is still a Catholic priest. I think Freke and Gandy are too.

Mythcists don't "preach" anything either. It sounds like you have little actual knowledge about the subject.

Again, please provide the documentation that explains their view that you can be both a mythicist and a Christian at the same time.
I am familiar with the all the names you provided.
Additionally, are you also saying Carrier is neither a mythicist or an atheist?
If so, please provide documentation.

Upon confirmation, I will correct my hypothesis.

Thank you in advance.

[ABuddhist]

How do you define "historical Jesus" ?

I am flexible. A person who was crucified upon the earth whom the Earliest Christians regarded as their saviour.