Mythical Christ Gains Favour

[d.thomas]

.


Personally, I always assumed an historical Jesus behind the story, but having read a few books from the mythicist viewpoint as well as the historical, it seems that from a Jewish/Hellenist cultural and historical view of the early centuries, a mythical Christ falls into place in that it makes more sense to view Jesus Christ as never having existed, at least not as a man that walked the earth. The earliest Christian writings which include the Epistles describe a spiritual Christ that resided in the spiritual realm, that sacrificed his "blood and flesh" in a heavenly sanctuary and was known to apostles through revelation, visions.

Philo laid down the theological groundwork for Christianity without mentioning a Christ or writing of a Jesus even though he was in Jerusalem at the supposed time of Jesus' crucifixion. He did write of Pontius Pilate, although his portrayal of a ruthless Pilate is in stark contrast to that of the concerned and caring Pilate portrayed in the Gospels. His son of God was spiritual, a mediator between God and man also referred to as the Word or Logos.

The author of Mark may have taken from different traditions such as a Christ cult from Jerusalem and a Jesus community from Galilee that had no known connection to a crucified and risen Christ and combined them to write his Gospel of a Jesus of Nazareth.


There are books and websites that cover a great deal of the aspects involved. The following I recommend in terms of this discussion:


http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... istory.htm



http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/


.

[Easyrider]

Quote: • Paul refers to Peter by the name Cephas (rock), which was the name Jesus gave to him. (1 Cor. 3:22)


d. Thomas wrote: Correction, Paul wrote this information decades before Mark. .... Paul wrote decades before Mark, so the logical conclusion is that Mark was aware of Paul's letters, or what was contained therein.

Even if Paul wrote before Mark, why is it automatically assumed that Mark's account depended on Paul's writings? Why isn't it just as possible that they both independently wrote of this - Mark based on Peter's eyewitness account and Paul based on what the church leaders revealed to him when Paul visited Jerusalem?

d. Thomas wrote:The author of Mark wrote that Jesus gave him this name when writing his gospel fiction.

Why the "fiction" claim? What evidence is there for that?

[achilles12604]

d. Thomas wrote:The author of Mark wrote that Jesus gave him this name when writing his gospel fiction.

Why the "fiction" claim? What evidence is there for that?

Easyrider is right in this observation. Claiming that Mark, Paul, Luke or anyone else writing in that time period was inventing fiction is a hard position to defend. This is because now you are making a strong claim that it impossible to support with evidence.

Yes there are unprovable factors regarding the Gospels. Yes some of the accounts may have grown with time. However, claiming that the entirety of the works of the NT are fiction, is a bold and unprovable claim, especially in light of supporting factors, many of which have been examined and discussed at great length on this very forum.

Of course I should certainly allow you to shed now light onto our examiniation of these documents. So by all means, present your case that every one of these documents is forged and "fiction" rather than having a core value of truth.

If possible please account for all the evidence rather than taking the tact of picking and choosing what to present, and ignoring anything which hurts your case.

[d.thomas]

Lotan, let's go back to this point

• Paul refers to Peter by the name Cephas (rock), which was the name Jesus gave to him. (1 Cor. 3:22)

Mark wrote a story about a Jesus that no one ever heard about no earlier than the year 67 and no later than 90 or so. It appears that he took the Jerusalem church leaders that Paul wrote about, namely James and Peter, and recast them into disciples of a Jesus that walked the earth, no where do the Epistles mention disciples. He also took the spiritual crucified and resurrected Christ that Paul visioned as being crucified in a heavenly sanctuary, and recast him into a man that was crucified on earth, in Jerusalem at the time of Pontius Pilate. It was Paul's epistles that Mark took from when he had Jesus give the name Cephas to Peter when writing his storied fiction. This scenario does not conflict in any way with the time line for these writings. To explain Paul's writings by looking forward to the Gospels that were written years later is to put the carriage before the horses.

Mark places his storied events at the time of Pontuis Pilate, the creationists know it took place then because it says so in their Bible. Never mind that no one noticed or cared enough to write about these event when they supposedly happened.

I would appreciate it if you would address the points made by the mythicists within the links I provided, show where they are at fault, rather than just post claims without a single word to back them up. Not only did you not substantiate them, but the author of the link you copied and pasted from didn't provide a single word of backup either. And it's the likes of me that's accused of pseudoscience.

[d.thomas]

d. Thomas wrote:The author of Mark wrote that Jesus gave him this name when writing his gospel fiction.

Why the "fiction" claim? What evidence is there for that?

Easyrider is right in this observation. Claiming that Mark, Paul, Luke or anyone else writing in that time period was inventing fiction is a hard position to defend. This is because now you are making a strong claim that it impossible to support with evidence.

Yes there are unprovable factors regarding the Gospels. Yes some of the accounts may have grown with time. However, claiming that the entirety of the works of the NT are fiction, is a bold and unprovable claim, especially in light of supporting factors, many of which have been examined and discussed at great length on this very forum.

Of course I should certainly allow you to shed now light onto our examiniation of these documents. So by all means, present your case that every one of these documents is forged and "fiction" rather than having a core value of truth.

If possible please account for all the evidence rather than taking the tact of picking and choosing what to present, and ignoring anything which hurts your case.

When I read of virgin births, heavens parting, a booming voice from above, raisings of the dead, rising from the dead and ascending bodily into heaven, I get a clue that I am reading fiction.

[achilles12604]

d. Thomas wrote:The author of Mark wrote that Jesus gave him this name when writing his gospel fiction.

Why the "fiction" claim? What evidence is there for that?

Easyrider is right in this observation. Claiming that Mark, Paul, Luke or anyone else writing in that time period was inventing fiction is a hard position to defend. This is because now you are making a strong claim that it impossible to support with evidence.

Yes there are unprovable factors regarding the Gospels. Yes some of the accounts may have grown with time. However, claiming that the entirety of the works of the NT are fiction, is a bold and unprovable claim, especially in light of supporting factors, many of which have been examined and discussed at great length on this very forum.

Of course I should certainly allow you to shed now light onto our examiniation of these documents. So by all means, present your case that every one of these documents is forged and "fiction" rather than having a core value of truth.

If possible please account for all the evidence rather than taking the tact of picking and choosing what to present, and ignoring anything which hurts your case.

When I read of virgin births, heavens parting, a booming voice from above, raisings of the dead, rising from the dead and ascending bodily into heaven, I get a clue that I am reading fiction.

You begin your approach from the position it must be false?

Then how can you possibly expect to reach an unbiased conclusion if you distrust one side completely before beginning based on prior prejudice?

I realize it is impossible to be totally neutral. Even being FAIR is extreamly difficult. However, beginning from the perspective that there is no supernatural just because, is essentially beginning your examination from the extream left rather than even trying to be close to the middle and letting your findings guide your path.

This would be like determining the benifits of Democracy and capitolism from the viewpoint of Karl Marx. You will never reach a fair examination of the evidence.

[d.thomas]

d.thomas wrote:
Why should this story be different than all the others, especially the number of stories of other miracle workers from generally the same time and area that read very much the same, following the same plot and general outline.

And who exactly fits that outline? Vague resemblences are a poor basis on which to make claims.

In the first century of the Common Era, there appeared at the eastern end of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one true God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of God, though he called himself the son of a man. Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended to heaven. Who was this teacher and wonder-worker? His name was Apollonius of Tyana; he died about 98 A.D., and his story may be read in Flavius Philostratus's Life of Apollonius.
-- from Randall Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 9

[juliod]

I'm still waiting on some credible evidence that Q ever existed and is more than a rambling hypothesis.

Hey EasyR, I wouldn't be so fast here, if I was you. If Q didn't exist, then certainly Jesus never existed either. If Q was a set of authentic sayings of Jesus, then it would be just about the only connection to an original christianity. Since most of Mark can be identified as extracts of OT scripture, the risk is that if you reject Q then you dissolve Jesus.

I believe that that already happened, while Lotan thinks that is nearly happened.

DanZ

[d.thomas]

d. Thomas wrote:The author of Mark wrote that Jesus gave him this name when writing his gospel fiction.

Why the "fiction" claim? What evidence is there for that?

Easyrider is right in this observation. Claiming that Mark, Paul, Luke or anyone else writing in that time period was inventing fiction is a hard position to defend. This is because now you are making a strong claim that it impossible to support with evidence.

Yes there are unprovable factors regarding the Gospels. Yes some of the accounts may have grown with time. However, claiming that the entirety of the works of the NT are fiction, is a bold and unprovable claim, especially in light of supporting factors, many of which have been examined and discussed at great length on this very forum.

Of course I should certainly allow you to shed now light onto our examiniation of these documents. So by all means, present your case that every one of these documents is forged and "fiction" rather than having a core value of truth.

If possible please account for all the evidence rather than taking the tact of picking and choosing what to present, and ignoring anything which hurts your case.

When I read of virgin births, heavens parting, a booming voice from above, raisings of the dead, rising from the dead and ascending bodily into heaven, I get a clue that I am reading fiction.

You begin your approach from the position it must be false?

Then how can you possibly expect to reach an unbiased conclusion if you distrust one side completely before beginning based on prior prejudice?

I realize it is impossible to be totally neutral. Even being FAIR is extreamly difficult. However, beginning from the perspective that there is no supernatural just because, is essentially beginning your examination from the extream left rather than even trying to be close to the middle and letting your findings guide your path.

This would be like determining the benifits of Democracy and capitolism from the viewpoint of Karl Marx. You will never reach a fair examination of the evidence.

To suggest that those who consider the laws of physics to be valid are communists is an attempt at being neutral in all of this?

[d.thomas]

d. Thomas wrote:The author of Mark wrote that Jesus gave him this name when writing his gospel fiction.

Why the "fiction" claim? What evidence is there for that?

Easyrider is right in this observation. Claiming that Mark, Paul, Luke or anyone else writing in that time period was inventing fiction is a hard position to defend. This is because now you are making a strong claim that it impossible to support with evidence.

Yes there are unprovable factors regarding the Gospels. Yes some of the accounts may have grown with time. However, claiming that the entirety of the works of the NT are fiction, is a bold and unprovable claim, especially in light of supporting factors, many of which have been examined and discussed at great length on this very forum.

Of course I should certainly allow you to shed now light onto our examiniation of these documents. So by all means, present your case that every one of these documents is forged and "fiction" rather than having a core value of truth.

If possible please account for all the evidence rather than taking the tact of picking and choosing what to present, and ignoring anything which hurts your case.

When I read of virgin births, heavens parting, a booming voice from above, raisings of the dead, rising from the dead and ascending bodily into heaven, I get a clue that I am reading fiction.

You begin your approach from the position it must be false?

Then how can you possibly expect to reach an unbiased conclusion if you distrust one side completely before beginning based on prior prejudice?

I realize it is impossible to be totally neutral. Even being FAIR is extreamly difficult. However, beginning from the perspective that there is no supernatural just because, is essentially beginning your examination from the extream left rather than even trying to be close to the middle and letting your findings guide your path.

This would be like determining the benifits of Democracy and capitolism from the viewpoint of Karl Marx. You will never reach a fair examination of the evidence.

Sorry, should have provided first before submitting.

To suggest that those who consider the laws of physics to be valid are communists is an attempt at being neutral in all of this?

[achilles12604]

d. Thomas wrote:The author of Mark wrote that Jesus gave him this name when writing his gospel fiction.

Why the "fiction" claim? What evidence is there for that?

Easyrider is right in this observation. Claiming that Mark, Paul, Luke or anyone else writing in that time period was inventing fiction is a hard position to defend. This is because now you are making a strong claim that it impossible to support with evidence.

Yes there are unprovable factors regarding the Gospels. Yes some of the accounts may have grown with time. However, claiming that the entirety of the works of the NT are fiction, is a bold and unprovable claim, especially in light of supporting factors, many of which have been examined and discussed at great length on this very forum.

Of course I should certainly allow you to shed now light onto our examiniation of these documents. So by all means, present your case that every one of these documents is forged and "fiction" rather than having a core value of truth.

If possible please account for all the evidence rather than taking the tact of picking and choosing what to present, and ignoring anything which hurts your case.

When I read of virgin births, heavens parting, a booming voice from above, raisings of the dead, rising from the dead and ascending bodily into heaven, I get a clue that I am reading fiction.

You begin your approach from the position it must be false?

Then how can you possibly expect to reach an unbiased conclusion if you distrust one side completely before beginning based on prior prejudice?

I realize it is impossible to be totally neutral. Even being FAIR is extreamly difficult. However, beginning from the perspective that there is no supernatural just because, is essentially beginning your examination from the extream left rather than even trying to be close to the middle and letting your findings guide your path.

This would be like determining the benifits of Democracy and capitolism from the viewpoint of Karl Marx. You will never reach a fair examination of the evidence.

To suggest that those who consider the laws of physics to be valid are communists is an attempt at being neutral in all of this?

I was addressing the approach to the evidence from different viewpoints.

If you read carefully, you can see that I created a litterary analogy. I used the comparison of two known items to reflect on the relationship of two other, seperate items.

In short, I didn't compare belief in physics to communism as you claim I did. I compared the approach of two political and economic systems. And I seperately compared the approach of two viewpoints of beliefs.

Now feel free to comment on the content of my post and if indeed your approach to he evidence could possibly hinder you from a fair and unbaised analysis.