The Propaganda War Against Mythicism [Vridar]

[Leucius Charinus]

http://vridar.org/2013/10/18/the-propag ... mythicism/

As their weapon of choice against the Christ Myth hypothesis (“mythicism”), theologians, religion and Biblical scholars appear from where I stand to regularly deploy the instruments of propaganda. The motivations appear to me to be to maintain

•their status and reputation in a society infested with critical and anti-establishment influences, and

•their control over the terms of religious debates, dictating what are legitimate topics for review and what are not.

I use the term “propaganda” because it’s yet another valid way of explaining what is happening. Simpler expressions are “labeling” and “framing the debate”. Adding the concept of “propaganda” to the list might help us understand more clearly what is actually happening in these “discussions”.

////


The reason propaganda-talk is necessary is because there is genuine disagreement between those who speak up within the academy and some who speak out from without the academy. Some people are disturbed by legitimate questions and plausible arguments that challenge the traditional wisdom of the establishment elites.

[Duvduv]

As attractive as the mythist theory is, and as creative as the radicals are in their theories, there is no actual basis anywhere for an argument for an ancient belief in a mythical Jesus unless one simply takes pieces out of context - i.e. deconstructs out of context the texts COMPRISING the UNIFIED SET of the official canon of the New Testament........

[avi]

Perhaps I err, Duvduv, but I think you may have misunderstood, else I have made the mistake.

There is no argument, of which I am aware, that in ancient times, ordinary folks believed in a "mythical" Jesus, anymore than they believed in a "mythical" Hercules, or a "mythical" Zarathrusta.

It is those of us alive today, who make the claim that Jesus never existed. I don't imagine that folks living thousands of years ago, imagined Jesus as only a deity, residing somewhere up in the clouds of heaven. I surmise that those living two millennia ago, believed that jesus had been real, had been genuinely executed by crucifixion, and had died for their sins.

Superman comics appeared in the 1930's. No adult believed then, or now, that Superman was real. He was a known figment of our imagination, nothing more. Jesus became mythical, only with the realization that the gospels were not historical documents, but rather, works of fiction, like our 20th century comic books.

Superman stories are not 100% nonsense, fiction, and myth. There are legitimate concerns raised, in those comic books, about governance of our society, in this era, and that was also the case, 2000 years ago, as well, with the gospel writers' works of fiction.

[outhouse]

I don't imagine that folks living thousands of years ago, imagined Jesus as only a deity, residing somewhere up in the clouds of heaven. I surmise that those living two millennia ago, believed that jesus had been real, had been genuinely executed by crucifixion, and had died for their sins.
.

I would like to say your correct.

But we see many different views early before orthodoxy set in.

They argued for hundreds of years about this exact topic, right from the start.

[dewitness]

Jesus became mythical, only with the realization that the gospels were not historical documents, but rather, works of fiction, like our 20th century comic books.

Jesus was described as the Son of God who walked on the sea of Galilee, transfigured and resurrected. Jesus of the NT was a Myth from the start and in antiquity many actually believed Mythology was History.

It must not be forgotten that the Holy Ghost [Holy Spirit] was also a figure of History, the very Father of Jesus and it came down from heaven on the day of Pentecost. See Acts 2

In antiquity, the stories of Jesus the Son of God born of a Ghost were EXTREMELY Plausible and was accepted in the Roman Empire.


Ironically, people today are now claiming Jesus of the NT was a figure of history, AFTER it was realized that gospels are not historical documents.

[Blood]

Perhaps I err, Duvduv, but I think you may have misunderstood, else I have made the mistake.

There is no argument, of which I am aware, that in ancient times, ordinary folks believed in a "mythical" Jesus, anymore than they believed in a "mythical" Hercules, or a "mythical" Zarathrusta.

It is those of us alive today, who make the claim that Jesus never existed. I don't imagine that folks living thousands of years ago, imagined Jesus as only a deity, residing somewhere up in the clouds of heaven. I surmise that those living two millennia ago, believed that jesus had been real, had been genuinely executed by crucifixion, and had died for their sins.

Superman comics appeared in the 1930's. No adult believed then, or now, that Superman was real. He was a known figment of our imagination, nothing more. Jesus became mythical, only with the realization that the gospels were not historical documents, but rather, works of fiction, like our 20th century comic books.

Superman stories are not 100% nonsense, fiction, and myth. There are legitimate concerns raised, in those comic books, about governance of our society, in this era, and that was also the case, 2000 years ago, as well, with the gospel writers' works of fiction.

Yes, and the other relevant point I'd make here is that no one has been moved to write a book alleging that Superman was mythical. Was he therefore real?

It's often asserted by the Ehrman types that while Jesus was attacked by ancient commentators, none of them made the charge that he was mythical, ergo this is evidence that was a real person.

[Leucius Charinus]

It's often asserted by the Ehrman types that while Jesus was attacked by ancient commentators, none of them made the charge that he was mythical, ergo this is evidence that was a real person.

The most ancient charge against Jesus, documented in the letters of John as being subscribed to by many people,
and echoed in the writings of the gnostic heretics down through the ages, was that Jesus "did not appear in the flesh",
which is a rather archaic way of saying that Jesus did not appear in history. See "Docetic; Docetism; Docetae".

The history of historicity denial has been erased from the historical record by the orthodoxy. It was seen as, and still
is seen as, a pernicious heresy that did not serve the monotheistic state cult. It's presence and growth has been severely
checked by Draconian Church inquisitions, and Draconian national and state "Blasphemy Laws" until recent centuries.

Even the terms "Docetic; Docetism; Docetae" have been ameliorated and attenuated by the heresiological agendas
down through the centuries. The docetic heretics have been exterminated, their writings burnt, and their names and their
very historical memory have been subject to church anathema and imperial "damnation memoriae".

[MrMacSon]

The history of historicity denial has been erased from the historical record by the orthodoxy. It was seen as, and still
is seen as, a pernicious heresy that did not serve the monotheistic state cult. It's presence and growth has been severely
checked by Draconian Church inquisitions, and Draconian national and state "Blasphemy Laws" until recent centuries.

This where internet discussions get confusing. Do you mean

A.
[Jesus's historicity] was seen as, and still is seen as, a pernicious heresy that did not serve the monotheistic state cult. [The] presence and growth of [Jesus's historicity] has been severely checked by Draconian Church inquisitions, and Draconian national and state "Blasphemy Laws" until recent centuries. ??

or

B.
[Denial] was seen as, and still is seen as, a pernicious heresy that did not serve the monotheistic state cult. [The] presence and growth [of denial of Jesus's historicity] has been severely checked by Draconian Church inquisitions, and Draconian national and state "Blasphemy Laws" until recent centuries. ??

I suspect/assume 'A'.

[Leucius Charinus]

Hi Mac, I actually mean B.

The Denial of Jesus's historicity was seen as, and still is seen as, a pernicious heresy that did not serve the monotheistic state cult. [The] presence and growth [of denial of Jesus's historicity] has been severely checked by Draconian Church inquisitions, and Draconian national and state "Blasphemy Laws" until recent centuries.

IMO not only has the [Denial of Jesus's historicity] been suppressed (ameliorated) from the record, but also the "History of the Denial [of Jesus's historicity] has been subjected to the same fate. That is, the history of the Denial of Jesus's historicity has been CENSORED and suppressed from the historical record.

I reject the propaganda floated by modern scholars, such as Ehrman, that "the idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion which only appeared (in writing) in the 18th (or 19th) century". I reject this propaganda on the basis that, between the 15th and the 19th century, state and national "Blasphemy Laws" made it very unlikely that any person would commit to writing the idea that Jesus did not exist. Before the 15th century, the precursor to "Blasphemy Laws" were "Heresy Laws". The church (then) had greater (Inquisitional) power, and directly executed its own dissidents. The first state church inquisition is attested in the mid 4th century. Ammianus Marcellinus (Book 19,CH 7). These Draconian abominable throw-back despicable insane "Heresy Laws" essentially operated for an entire millennium between the 4th and the 14th century, when they were migrated into the "Blasphemy Laws". [AS IF Jesus and God and their monotheistic church need protection!!]

Some of the books of the gnostic authors committed to writing the notion that Jesus did not really exist.

IMO the compilers of the canon knew in advance that there would be a problem with the "historicity of Jesus", and they therefore included in their writings:

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,
whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

"For many deceivers are entered into the world,
who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
This is a deceiver and an antichrist."

I see a direct equivalence between those who "confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" and those who "deny the historicity of Jesus"

[spin]

Oh for crying out loud, mountainman. You don't mean historicity in any significant sense. The notion wasn't available to the vastest majority of the ancient population and was only a vague glimmer in a few historians' heads. You are talking about a challenge to the assumed existence or reality in this world of Jesus. People since the notion of historicity was introduced in the 19th century may have the possibility of denying it and ancient historians without the luxury of a handy word couldn't pass the notion around for discussion.