The Propaganda War Against Mythicism [Vridar]

[MrMacSon]

This could be worth a watch

http://youtu.be/ILldt2XHZw0?t=28m3s

[avi]

a real presence in this world, but his earthly body was an illusion.

Very interesting misunderstanding of the word "real".

We detect "reality", by means of sensory information, reaching the neocortex. If an object, "earthly body", or automobile, or diploma, or anything else, is "illusory", then, it only "appears" to exist, but it does not actually exist. A mirror image is a good illustration. An earthly body that does not exist, cannot be "real".

Perhaps, we need some quotes from the docetist literature, to aid us, in this discussion. Did some faction of ancient Greeks believe that a particular individual, Herakles or Jesus or Zarathustra, or anyone else, was genuinely human, but invisible, as would seem to be implied by spin's comment above? That is quite different from "illusory", in which a sensation is perceived, that is not actually present, much like a holographic transmission. The starting point in unraveling this English language imbroglio, is to comprehend, that "real" means genuine, actual, detectable by one or more of our five senses, or, at least by some instrument. We cannot detect x-rays, but they are real. Some of us, with limited vision, cannot see "no-seeums" (tiny insects floating in the air), but we can feel the effects of their bite, especially if we suffer an immunologic response to their incursion past our cutaneous defenses.

There is also a distinction between "belief" that something is "real", and an empirical exposition of that fact. For those of us who are color blind, though we cannot distinguish red from green, were the colors converted into sounds, of different frequencies, we could detect the distinction. Throughout history, there have been humans whose sensory capabilities are far greater (or inferior) than the ordinary human, so, for those with "gifted" skills, or impaired sensation, the "normal" view of what is "real", may be false. For some docetists, in other words, it may have been self evident that someone could exist, without being perceived, simply because of impairment in sensory reception for that group of individuals.

[stephan happy huller]

No that's not the only meaning of the word 'real.' Take the example of the word 'natural.' There is two sense of the word - something that lives in nature and then the sense of Aretha Franklin's 'you make me feel like a natural woman.' She doesn't mean that the man makes her want to run out and live in a cave in the wild.

'Real' is actually derived from the Latin res but people often describe 'keeping it real' as having to do with feelings. 'Just keeping it real' is rarely used by a professor of physics unless he is trying to appeal his lecture to a young demographic. Think about the song 'Real Love.' What distinguishes 'real love' from ordinary love? Feelings.

[stephan happy huller]

mythical does not equal ahistorical

mythical = supernatural

supernatural stories are mythical stories ie. myths

There is a history of myths.

No one describes love as mythical. No one says 'I really have to fuck you' at least with a significant other. Again as I noted above religion is about feelings. Let me tell you a typical religious presence story from South America. My wife's mother is from Venezuela and like many Venezuelan women they are both exceptionally beautiful. They both came back from Venezuela a few decades back to visit my wife's aunt Josefina and a few months later she died. When my wife came home a massive butterfly was on the door. It was supposedly three feet long and multicolored. That was Josefina. The butterfly stayed on the door until her mother got home. That was because Josefina had to say goodbye to her favorite sister. Is that a mythical experience? They don't seem to think so. The butterfly was actually there I have no doubt about that. Was it Josefina? Of course not. The same experience is described in the gospel with respect to Jesus crucifixion. Not exactly as described but a real historical event nonetheless (not involving butterflies).

[MrMacSon]

but the same experience is not described in the gospel with respect to Jesus crucifixion.

People describing events where real butterflies come & land after a relative's death is different to other people reporting seeing images of people-who-have-recently-died; or allegations of other people seeing images of dead people; or narratives about that.

Images of a post-resurrection Jesus are entirely consistent with a pre-crucifixion Docetic (or other Gnostic-belief) Jesus - they are perceptions, likely fostered by wishful-thinking. Especially, as there may actually be some overlap of the narrative of resurrection and a proposal of a 'second-coming'.

[outhouse]

This could be worth a watch

Not really. Not only is it biased, many parts do not make sense and it takes leaps of imagination to follow his view.

More so then thinking men found a man to be important, and due to mythology associated with theology, described him using mythology.


To date, nothing fits better then a martyred man at Passover, whom people thought he gave his life as the ultimate sacrifice for the common man.


Its why he has historicity, mythicist cannot strip away with poor attempts like above.

[MrMacSon]

The narrative about Jesus certainly has historicity; the character may not.

Moreover, mythology is how the christianized west has described preChristian theology.

Christian theology can be categorized as a subset of mythology.

[stephan happy huller]

I think that a lot of people confuse poetry with mythicism. Under no circumstances is it true that the evangelist/apostle was simply making up a myth 'that never happened.' I've never seen any evidence to indicate any reason to believe this other than the hatred of those espousing this view against religion as such. It is interesting Jewish people who have traditionally hated Christianity don't generally espouse 'mythicism.' Most lay people don't pick up on it. It rubs them the wrong way because it is unnatural. Exaggeration is more likely that outright lie in human psychology. Making stuff up from scratch is very rare. Exaggerating the norm.

[MrMacSon]

Under no circumstances is it true that the evangelist/apostle was simply making up a myth 'that never happened.'

"the evangelist/apostle"?? .... "a myth"? "under no circumstances"??

How do you propose myths start?

[stephan happy huller]

I don't know how much time I need to spend on this. There was a year for the Passion. The original date was 21 CE so Eusebius's pagan source. The idea that the gospel narrative was entirely made up is simply less likely than the alternative.