• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Christ Myth Theory

@No Robots , I would hope at this point you appreciate that I'm not some bizzaro Nazi trying to poo-poo your beliefs, but trying to show you that there's a stronger spine in them that cannot be broken by the Mythicist or Amalgamist narratives but rather is made stronger through Amalgamism, this immortal idea of rebirth through empathy and love and forgiveness, and that literal resurrection would insult rather than bolster this necessary truth, and  tainting the purity of the experiment were it to happen.

I'm just kind of pissed how badly it was fumbled as a concept by... Pretty much everyone?

I would say that this requires forgiveness of each other but not of self. We must remember who we have been and allow that goad to make us better, and to not be people who are awful, to not give in to our demons through understanding this idea, not a name, but radical love of self and others.

Here's another story, perhaps different from the ones presented in the gospels, and almost certainly a fiction but I will leave it to you to decide it's truth:

Once upon a time in Palestine a man named Jesus talked to someone who has killed several sheep and needed to find a way and a reason to not graduate to people. Jesus taught him the idea of radical love of self and others and he saw in this a reason to love and attempt empathy, so as to avoid living forever in infamy among the stories of his fellows.

The young budding sociopath sees truth in these words and Jesus convinced them that looked upon him with suspicion of having murdered a flock of sheep one night that upon hearing "the holy name", the gospel of radical love, the demons have been drowned in the flock of sheep the sociopath had already killed.

Whether or not he committed murders, Jesus saved his life, and gave him what may be his path towards stepping away from who he was.
You have a degree of humility and self-awareness that I find refreshing in these quarters. Your awareness of the over-riding spiritual message of the New Testament counts in your favour. The endless sterile speculation about the man, Christ, however, is an indication of weakness in your ethics and philosophy. Not that I blame you. This has been the favourite pseudo-intellectual sport of the scholastic pundits for millennia. It is now democratized: every yokel with a modem has a theory of Christian origins. The problem with it all is that it blinds those with a real capacity to see the great truth in all this, that it is a man who embodies the great truth of love, and that it is through his example that the whole of mankind is destined to embody this truth.
Rather, my point is that doubt is in fact the strength and core of my philosophy: that all things except the necessity of doubt must be doubted whenever the opportunity presents itself without significant immediate peril, and that there is a model for how and when and where to apply doubt to knowledge.

It is entirely appropriate to doubt that for which there is little evidence, such as the immediate life and historical existence of one person as the basis for so many stories, when the evidence points to an amalgamation when viewed from the far side of initiation.
 
You are of course welcome to your doubt. And I appreciate the opportunity to present my own views in dialectic with yours. I am grateful for my certainty on this question, and I hope that all who are capable of sharing it with me shall do so.
 
steve_bank acknowledges "the Jewish prophet we call Jesus." This is something that mythicists refuse to do. This refusal leads to seeking the origin of Christianity outside Judaism. And it is for this reason that mythicism is inherently anti-Jewish.

In the words of Buggs Bunney 'What a maroon'.

I do not acknowledge anything. My position has long been there may have been an HJ on which the tale was spun. I belive Jews consdier Jesus as a prophet and there is a Jewish Christian group.
Here is what you wrote: Gentiles co-opted Jewish scripture as their own and the Jewish prophet we call Jesus.

Do wish to modify this statement so that it reads something like "the mythical Jewish prophet?" If so, please be more careful in future so that your readers do not fall into the "maroon" category when they quote what you actually write.
Ok. I will amend what I said.

For future rference when I say the Jewish prophet or Jesus or any such thing the word alleged is implied. All things consderd I woud think that would have been obvious.

If you read my posts over time you woud know I abslutely do not buy myths of any kind. If anything I generally align with naturalism and freethought.

After recent debates I have come to think the gospels are a conflation of events and people embellished by the creation of supernatural myths.

If Swan's posted meaning of Judas Iscariot is correct that points to the gospels being symbolic stories not real people. Judas symbolizes an element of Jerusalem Jews.

The problem for us today is we do not know the context of the converstions of the day. It woud be like trying to undertsand a Jay Leno monologue 2000 years from now traslating English he used to future another language using only a dictopmary. His meaning and mtephors and symbolism woud be obvious to those of us in his genration, but lost 2000 eras from now.
 
It is now democratized: every yokel with a modem has a theory of Christian origins.
As Wells caved-in to criticism (see #563);  Earl Doherty like Prometheus (who is best known for defying the gods by giving knowledge to humanity), gave the gift of fire to all mankind by publishing:
On 11 May 1996, Doherty then weaponized all The Jesus Puzzle articles (that had been previously published) by reproducing them on his website: The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?

In 1999 Doherty published the content of his website as a book:
The book went through 4 printings and selling out every time. Ca. 2016 it cost over $100 dollars to purchase a used book!

WWW_server: www.magi.com
USER_ID: oblio
URL: http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus.html

Pratt, David (Summer 2002). "Who Was the Real Jesus?" (PDF). FOHAT. 6 (2): 30–34.
There is disagreement as to whether Paul and his fellow-believers saw Jesus as a man who had lived on earth at some more distant time in the past or whether they saw him entirely as a mythical figure, a spiritual being who lived and operated in the ‘supernatural’ world, like all the other saviour gods of the time. Although Paul makes it clear that he himself had never met an historical Jesus, there are a handful of passages in his writings that could be interpreted as referring to a previous earthly existence of Jesus. Earl Doherty, however, argues that these are better interpreted in line with Platonic thinking about counterpart realities in the higher spiritual world. In his view, pre-gospel Christian records do not provide any evidence of a widespread tradition about a human founder who was a prophet, teacher, miracle-worker and interpreter of scripture — in either the recent or distant past. (p. 31)

Jesus the Nazar

The Hebrew name for Christians has always been notzrim, and although modern Christians claim that Christianity only started in the 1st century CE, the 1st-century Christians in Israel considered themselves to be a continuation of the notzri movement, which had been in existence for about 150 years. equivalent of notzri is nazoraios (or nazaraios/naziraios). The stem of this word means ‘to keep oneself separate’ — an indication of the ascetic nature of this sect. The early Christians conjectured that nazoraios (variously rendered Nazar/Nazarite, Nazorean or Nazarene) meant a person from Nazareth and so it was assumed that Jesus lived in Nazareth. However, the original Hebrew for Nazareth is Natzrat and a person from Nazareth is a Natzrati. The expression ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ is therefore a mistranslation of ‘Jeshu ha-Notzri’. (p. 33)

  • Earl Doherty . . . made his “public appearance” on a biblical scholars forum on Tuesday, the 9th of February, 1999: Crosstalk. In the light of some unfortunate mischaracterizations of the tone of Earl’s engagement with scholars and the wider public I have decided to post the lead up to Earl’s entrance into that web forum and the initial responses of scholars to his presence. This post only looks at the first half of that intention and concludes with the entrance of Earl to Crosstalk. The next post in this series will set out the posts demonstrating the way the different parties responded to his arrival.
 
Last edited:
Doherty and Price are up to their eyeballs in de-Judaizing the New Testament.

Price gives us ten pages [151-160] of parallels between the sayings of Q1 (the apparent bedrock layer of the Q document) and Cynic-style pronouncements of famous sages like Epictetus, Seneca, or of those reporting on Cynic philosophers, such as Diogenes Laertius. There seems little doubt of the ultimate provenance of the core teachings of the Gospel Jesus -- and it isn't a Jewish one. This makes exceedingly ironic the modern appeal on the part of religious conservatives to a Christianity that preserves a so-called Judaeo-Christian tradition: something which in actuality constitutes an ethic that is Greek and a philosophy and ritual of salvation derived from the thoroughly Hellenistic ethos of the mystery cults.--Earl Doherty on Robert M. Price's Deconstructing Jesus

The irony is that Doherty's followers think that they are fighting against traditional scholarship whereas in fact they are wallowing in its worst anti-Jewish tendencies.
 
Godfrey, Neil (3 December 2018). "Earl Doherty's First Day with Biblical Scholars on Crosstalk Forum". Vridar.
John MacDonald says:
2018-12-03
It probably would have helped his reception if Doherty had some credentials. If I, who has no credentials in Math, went onto a website for profession mathematicians and asked them to evaluate my idiosyncratic theory, the surprising thing would be if they did take me seriously.
Neil Godfrey says:
2018-12-04
As implied in some of the comments here, what is questionable is not so much the asking for credentials of itself, but who is asking for them, and the way in which the question is asked.

When a highly credentialed person in a field fails to give a clear and unambiguous answer to a question but replies by asking for the credentials lying behind the question, it’s a pretty good indicator that the credentialed person has a problem.

Looking back on those Crosstalk discussions I am reminded how new I was to the question of Jesus mythicism. I was too new and green to enter the discussions myself at that stage, but I was watching and learning the whole time. Among the many things I learned was that those with the credentials so very often had precious little by way of serious reply to the arguments Doherty presented.

I think it was the tone of the responses of the credentialed in that forum (and their failure to address the actual problems Doherty raised) that moved me closer to thinking Doherty might be right.

Godfrey, Neil (27 May 2010). "How and Why Scholars Fail to Rebut Earl Doherty". Vridar.

Reading Doherty and Wells: the essential difference​

  • Reading mythicist books by G. A. Wells is easy.
They are very easy to follow because the arguments are in a very large part a series of dot-point rebuttals to various claims by mainstream historical Jesus scholars.
[. . .]
Doherty does not write in academic jargon but pitches his books for the educated layman. But there is nothing inferior about his insights.
 
So, I've said my piece here I think. I have reached an accord with @Swammerdami on what amounts to an agreement on an amalgamist-mythicist interpretation wherein John and Chrestus and probably a few other minor Jesus or Messianic groups got absorbed in the 20bce-40ce baptist movement's collapse and rebranding following rapid prominent leader deaths, had a number of competing narratives spun by Jewish Pharisee and Sadducee interests, and between the cross-fertilization of these myths about various persons, eventually Toledot Yeshu and The Gospel of Mark were written and further distributed and widely perverted and embellished, with some letters of dubious authenticity surfacing about that time from an early leader in the church "Paul" who "had a vision from jesus" and had involvement clearly with Chrestus's branch of the cult ecosystem.

And, I've said my piece on the basis of radical love and the value of this message, and the holes in the value of it, and in the almost certain perversion of a very important historical advance in western ethical thought to the point where I think @No Robots accepts that this is a valid interpretation even if not the one they walk away with.

All of this is built on links I got from @dbz who has repeatedly endorsed this point of Amalgamism and from whose links and quotes I actually constructed it from.

I just don't see what more I'm going to get from this at this point so thanks for all the great discussion but I'm done on this topic I think.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2022-07-26 at 12-22-56 Critics of the historicity of Jesus.png
    Screenshot 2022-07-26 at 12-22-56 Critics of the historicity of Jesus.png
    69.8 KB · Views: 4
It is now democratized: every yokel with a modem has a theory of Christian origins.
As Wells caved-in to criticism (see #563); Earl Doherty like Prometheus (who is best known for defying the gods by giving knowledge to humanity), gave the gift of fire to all mankind by publishing:
On 11 May 1996, Doherty then weaponized all The Jesus Puzzle articles (that had been previously published) by reproducing them on his website: The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?

Pearse (1 December 2018). "Memories of the polemical and literary activity of Earl Doherty". Roger Pearse.
Doherty was a Canadian atheist, who used the nascent internet to push the claim that Jesus never existed. . . . the popularity of the claim among online teenage atheists is entirely his work. Others would come later, but he was the first.
[. . .]
He started with a website, jesuspuzzle.org. This contained his theory, in the form of a series of pages or essays, all of them written with the utmost certainty. The original versions could be pretty crude.
It is quite true that the website: The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus? likely contributed to Carrier receiving a $20,000 research grant after initially reviewing Doherty's work:
n.b. Carrier's review was presented on the website: Secular Web of Internet Infidels🤯
 
There is money to be made by both atheist and theist alike.
 
Doherty and Price are up to their eyeballs in de-Judaizing the New Testament.

... exceedingly ironic the modern appeal on the part of religious conservatives to a Christianity that preserves a so-called Judaeo-Christian tradition: something which in actuality constitutes an ethic that is Greek and a philosophy...--Earl Doherty on Robert M. Price's Deconstructing Jesus

The irony is that Doherty's followers think that they are fighting against traditional scholarship whereas in fact they are wallowing in its worst anti-Jewish tendencies.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!

Jarhyn said: "There was almost certainly a heavy intersection between Jewish converts from earlier mysticism to the new cult."

Jarhyn said: "[T]he nature and structure of beliefs common in Jewish mysticism is an oft-overlooked aspect of that context in interpreting it in a contemporary way."

 
Jarhyn is correct to distance himself from the de-Judaizing tendencies of Doherty, Price and their followers.
 
Jarhyn is correct to distance himself from the de-Judaizing tendencies of Doherty, Price and their followers.

Alexander took Palestine in 332 BCE and Jews were quickly exposed en masse to Greek culture. In some cases, Palestinian Jews began accepting the influence of this culture. For example, Greek names began appearing within Jewish families as early as the late third century BCE. Jews outside of Palestine, namely in Egypt, exhibited greater signs of Hellenization.

Given the fact that  Hellenistic Judaism combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture. And that during the  Second Temple period (516 BCE – 70 CE) a Male Jew, would be OK with changing his normative sexuality and his body image as Jew.
[When] a Jewish man appeared in the gymnasium nude, circumcised or otherwise, given the status of nudity within Judaism, he would be changing his image as a Jew. A reverse circumcision on top of this would not only be breaking the covenant, but would also be saying as clearly as possible that his image as a Jew has changed forever.

In addition to issues of nudity, ideas of normative Jewish sexuality became increasingly defined during the Second Temple period [...] While not as prevalent in the East as it had been in Greece, pederasty remained a part of the education of gymnasia. [Percy, Pederasty and Pedagogy, 34.]

 
Great start!

That the historical Jesus was a Jew, that his followers were Jews, and that the Gospels as well as the letters written by the apostle Paul are Jewish writings, firmly embedded in first century C.E. Judaism—all this has become almost commonplace. After long and bitter battles, this fact now has a foothold not only among historians of ancient Judaism but even among the most dedicated Christian theologians and the old influential school of New Testament scholars who tried to relegate the new message of the New Testament to a less Jewish, more Hellenistic background. Indeed, the pendulum has swung far in the opposite direction, with scholars outdoing each other in proving the Jewishness of Jesus and the New Testament, and arguing that there is nothing in Jesus’s message as reflected in the New Testament that oversteps the boundaries of what might be expected from the Judaism of his day.--"The Jew Who Would Be God" / Peter Schäfer. Review of The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ By Daniel Boyarin. In The New Republic May 18, 2012.
 
Great start!
Also:
Godfrey, Neil. "Jésus-Christ, sublime figure de papier / Nanine Charbonnel". Vridar.
Neil said:
Christianity’s birth and early confused relationship with “Judaism” are still being explored. Without endorsing the lyrical tone of Edgar Quinet—Charbonnel quotes this portion of his reply to the critic David Friedrich Strauss,
. . . the miracle of Christianity is not this cure, but rather the prodigy of humanity extended on its sick couch, there cured of the leprosy of castes, of the blindness of pagan sensuality, and which, suddenly rising, walks far from the threshold of the old world. He knows well, that the miracle does not consist in the water being changed into wine, at the marriage in Cana, but rather in the change of the world by one single thought — in the sudden transfiguration of the ancient law — in the casting-off of the old man — in the empire of the Césars struck with stupor, as the soldiers of the sepulchre — in the barbarians mastered by the influence, the ark of which they had conquered — in the reformation which discusses that influence — in the philosophy which denies it — in the French revolution, which thought to destroy it, and which serves but to give it effect. . . .

We don’t have to be believers to acknowledge that something quite extraordinary has emerged through this fictional textuality and distinctive creation of the somewhat vague central character, evidently both a collective and an individual personality as well as being the personal point at which God meets humanity. As a philosopher, Charbonnel acknowledges a three-fold contribution this fiction has made to western philosophy: Incarnation — which has promoted respect for the things below the world of spirit; Imitation — with an “unheard of richness of modes” unknown in other religions (and with reference to her exploration of such themes in her earlier book Critique des métaphysiques du propre. La ressemblance et le Verbe, chapters 3 and 7); Inspiration — . . . .

I won’t attempt to cover any more of Charbonnel’s words there because some conclusions are meant to be read in full so that the reader is left drawing in their meanings long after having put the book down. But Charbonnel is quite right to acknowledge that “the invention of the figure of Jesus is therefore a key moment in human history”. His image has become an integral part of our culture. To translate Charbonnel’s closing words:
Never has any character been created like this: personification of the presence of his God, of his (chosen) people, of the event of his death, of his salvation and of his future at the end of time.
And never has any other human work known such a hermeneutical misunderstanding.
(p. 453.)
 
The words and deeds attribute to the gospel Jesus would have been outrageous to Jews. Any hint of somebody claiming to be directly related to god would have been serious blasphemy.

The idea of a Jewish demigod walking among the people, human mother and god father, would also be blasphemous.
Jews do not allow any physical imagery of god which is considered idolatry.

The gospels are Hellenistic probably intended as promotional material for the gentiles. The demigod birth narrative would resonate with gentiles, not Jews.



A demigod or demigoddess is a part-human and part-divine offspring of a deity and a human,[1] or a human or non-human creature that is accorded divine status after death, or someone who has attained the "divine spark" (spiritual enlightenment). An immortal demigod (-dess) often has tutelary status and a religious cult following, while a mortal demigod (-dess) is one who has fallen or died, but is popular as a legendary hero in various polytheistic religions. Figuratively, it is used to describe a person whose talents or abilities are so superlative that they appear to approach being divine.


Classical​

In the ancient Greek and Roman world, the concept of a demigod did not have a consistent definition and associated terminology rarely appeared.[6][need quotation to verify]

The earliest recorded use of the term occurs in texts attributed to the archaic Greek poets Homer and Hesiod. Both describe dead heroes as hemitheoi, or "half gods". In these cases, the word did not literally mean that these figures had one parent who was divine and one who was mortal.[7] Instead, those who demonstrated "strength, power, good family, and good behavior" were termed heroes, and after death they could be called hemitheoi,[8] a process that has been referred to as "heroization".[9] Pindar also used the term frequently as a synonym for "hero".[10]

According to the Roman author Cassius Dio, the Roman Senate declared Julius Caesar a demigod after his 46 BCE victory at Thapsus.[11] However, Dio was writing in the third century CE — centuries after the death of Caesar — and modern critics have cast doubt on whether the Senate really did this.[12]

The first Roman to employ the term "demigod" may have been the poet Ovid (17 or 18 CE), who used the Latin semideus several times in reference to minor deities.[13] The poet Lucan (39-65) also uses the term to speak of Pompey attaining divinity upon his death in 48 BCE.[14] In later antiquity, the Roman writer Martianus Capella (fl. 410-420) proposed a hierarchy of gods as follows:[15]

  • the gods proper, or major gods
  • the genii or daemones
  • the demigods or semones (who dwell in the upper atmosphere)
  • the manes and ghosts of heroes (who dwell in the lower atmosphere)
  • the earth-dwelling gods like fauns and satyrs
 
Charbonnel seems to be part of the growing trend among mythicists of distancing themselves from earlier theories involving pagan origins and instead developing theories of Christian origins out of purely Jewish thought. An early example of this is Jesus - A Very Jewish Myth by R.G. Price. I'm glad that mythicism is going down this road. It is a step in the right direction. I have every confidence that those who go far enough down this road will ultimately come to see just how inane the myth theory is, and will wind up certain of the historical reality of the man from Galilee. I must point out that I have found no evidence that Charbonnel is Jewish or is a scholar of Judaism.
 
Back
Top Bottom