Rory-
I am reading The Christ Conspiracy right now, which was Acharya's first book. From what I understand, her later books are much better as far as
using primary sources and respected contemporary scholars.
Not really. She just got better at obfuscation. One of the common criticisms of her is that she didn’t use primary sources so she invented some for her use.
Its been a long while since I’ve read anything of hers so I cant give much as explicit examples for now but, I do recall her use of the Luxor Temple carvings, which even a fellow Christ Myther Richard Currier claims she lied about. that’s not promising.
I'll admit, I am sketchy about a lot of the specifics she claims, and some of her sources are dubious, such as Barbara Walker. But... that doesn't mean that she's wrong about EVERYTHING.
But, her central thesis is wrong, and demonstrateably so, as are most of her wild accusations against al Christendom, ranging from accusations of forgery, to Christianity’s Church Fathers being Psychotics.
Even her claim that she had to use a Pen Name to avoid being killed by vengeful Christians was over the top and really nonsensical.
From reading her book, I actually learned about Docetism, which is a view that some Gnostic sects had that Jesus had been incorporeal, or an illusion, or just imaginary.
I suggest you read about Docetism from reliable sources.
No one ever claimed Jesus was Imaginary. The Docetic position was that he was a Pure Spirit that came to Earth disguised as a man, but never having been one. His outer form as a man was an illusion, not Jesus himself. None of them saw him as Imaginary.
I learned why so much emphasis is put on "Jesus lived in the flesh", because not every Christian (specifically Gnostic Christians, not orthodox Christians) believed in a flesh and blood Jesus.
The Gnostics did not exist early on, they came about a century afterward, and thus after the last book of the New Testament was written.
While it is True some of the basic Gnostic Ideas did exist, such as Jesus not being of flesh and blood, its not really True that they viewed him as Mythic in any way. Also, his view seems to have been a Minority one principally held by western Greek Converts.
Also, you pointing out the differences... OF COURSE there are going to be differences between Jesus's story and other gods' stories. Differences are ALWAYS going to outweigh the similarities. It's the similarities that suggest that there is a relationship between two or more things.
No, its not. The Similarities are too vague where they exist. EG, if Jesus is said to have performed a Miracle, and so did Dionysus, its not really Logical to assume the Cult of Dionysus influenced Jesus’ Cult. (Cult here being the older definition.)
There is no real link between Jesus and earlier pagan stories. Jesus was a real man, for starters, and the Gospel Narratives are simply retellings of this. Secular Scholars will claim they are embellished with legendary aspects of hi that were added, but his overall life was basically like what the Gospels say.
At the same time, nothing in the Earlier Pagan stories that are claimed to have been a major part of how Jesus came to be really add up. Most of them didn’t exist in actual Mythology, and were fabricate din the late 19th and early 20th century. What meagre else remains is simply not sufficient to be seen as a Valid link.
Hey, it's not like anybody thinks that the Jesus story follows another myth the way West Side Story follows Romeo & Juliet.
[quote]
Actually some do. By the way Jeuss Is not “Another Myth”.
[quote]
I think a more fair comparison would be "True Blood" sharing a lot of motifs with "Buffy" and "Angel". That doesn't mean "Buffy" and "Angel" necessarily had a direct effect on the plotlines in "True Blood", it just means that "True Blood" uses motifs that are already there, either from "Buffy" or from earlier sources that "Buffy" used motifs from. Television and fiction are always recycling motifs over and over again. Regardless of whether Alan Ball ever watched "Buffy" before making "True Blood" or not, it just shows that motifs exist in the collective consciousness. It was probably the same with the Jesus story.
Except a lot in the Jesus Story reads like Biography, and too much of it would not have been added to the story at all if it was all an invention.
Further, a lot of the Motif in the Jesus Story is contradictive to the accepted motifs of the day. EG, Jesus was born poor, and lived a life of poverty. That was not common for the other “Myths”. He also died on a Cross, something that was shameful and not at all analogous to the Deaths of the previous gods supposedly acting as his precursor.
As for Jesus' death being an actual event in history... there is no proof that it actually happened.
Yes there is. Its called Documentary evidence.
Even among scholars, whether Christian or atheist, who believe that Jesus had to have existed, there is no agreement on who, when and where he lived.
Actually there is a lot of agreement on who he was, and where he lived, and when. He was an Itinerate Jewish Preacher, who live din the early part of the First Century AD. He managed to get into trouble for his Message which seems to have been about Love and Salvation and forgiveness of Sins. He wound up killed because of Political tensions between himself and the chief Priests and Pharisees, and because the Romans saw him as a Rebel Rouser. He was Crucified. His Followers later claimed he rose from the Dead.
All of that is agreed to by all Scholars, no matter what their personal beliefs may be.
The general time he live din, as well as the basic outline of his life, are all well established and accepted Universally.
If you wish to dispute this, name a serious Scholar who doesn’t agree with the above, on any point.
By Serious, I mean in the right field, not Dougherty or Wells, and not Price whose work is laughed off any Campus its unfortunate enough to appear. I want real, respected Scholars.
I agree with Acharya S when she states that Jesus is basically a phantom when it comes to historical documentation.
Then you know nothing of History. There is more documentation about Jesus than the vast majority of other people in his age ever got. There’s more on him than anyone else at the time and place he lived in, and only Caesar got more overall in Antiquity.
The idea that there is a dearth of Historical Documentation is simply a laughably bad argument that doesn’t really look at the realities of how Historical Research is done in regards to the Ancient World.
I'm not saying that there's not enough evidence to justify belief that Jesus was a historical person, but there's not enough evidence that proves that he actually did exist, and there is certainly enough evidence to justify belief that Jesus was actually a mythical character. The mere fact of Docetism back in the 2nd century alone calls into question the historicity of Jesus.
There is no evidence to suggest he was a Mythic being, and you do not really understand Docetism.
Links.
http://ecole.evansville.edu/articles/docetism.htmlAnd…
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htmFurther…
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/DocetismDocetism did not teach that Jesus was a Myth, and the idea that Docetism can give weight to the Christ Myth Theory is just not valid. The Gnostics, and the earlier Docetists, never once claimed Jesus was a Myth or that he never visited Earth and walked Amongst us, they only claimed that Jesus was never Human and that is Physical Body was an illusion. However, they would say that Jesus actually talked to people, and gave his Sermon on the Mound, cured the Sick and injured such as Lepers, and the Blind, cast out Demons, and even appeared to be Crucified. The thing is, since he had no human form he couldn’t really be Crucified, so it only appeared as if he was.
That’s Docetism. The Docetists would have told you that Jesus really did live and all the Stories you hear about him were absolutely 100% True.
So how does that advance the Mythesist position?
There is actually ample evidence that Jesus existed as a man, and the evidence is so overwhelming that what you’ve just said above is not really even discussed in any History Class at all.
The Gospels alone read as if he was a real man and we’ve discussed this before, I will again if you’d like, but the idea that there is greater support for the Mythic position that the Historical one is just fanciful Rubbish. Its not even remotely logical. it’s not even Logical to think they have equal weight. No one in the actual fields relevant hold the Mythisist view. Does that not tell you something?
reply
share