I Want to Start a Mythicist Cult

Aupmanyav said:
Why? Paul is authoritarian. Christianity as it stands today is his creation, not of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Sorry. I thought you would appreciate my humor. There’s nothing surprising about you agreeing with that statement from Carrier.

Incidentally I don’t think that Paul’s view of Jesus was invented by Paul. It was fully developed by Jewish Christians before Paul wrote it down. He might have made it more accessible to Greeks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Thomas said:
Mills critic of CMT is that it's a flawed "gestalt" approach, where a preferred theory – Jesus didn't exist – is adopted, and then every individual piece of data is aggressively forced to fit that macro-narrative.
Click to expand...
I know it may be taking the thread a bit too far off topic, but an example of this confirmation bias is where Dr Carrier rejects The Jesus in Josephus Jewish Antiquities 20:200 (see article) as not referring to Jesus of Nazareth, but then insists that the Jesus in Josephus The Jewish War 6:5:3 (#173) does refer to Jesus of Nazareth. The former Jesus does not suit his narrative for Jesus of Nazareth, where the latter does.

It's just one example, and I'm no expert. Carrier always back himself with references. But he obviously has an axe to grind looking for passages that support his view, and forcing others to fit -- and it may be why some other scholars do not accept his work.

Longfellow said:
Incidentally I don’t think that Paul’s view of Jesus was invented by Paul. It was fully developed by Jewish Christians before Paul wrote it down. He might have made it more accessible to Greeks.
Click to expand...
I think the churches were already there? Paul didn't arrive and originate them?
 
Last edited:
The XYL said:
The ONLY difference is where these central events took place, not whether they did. Carrier would argue that Paul's gospel (which he received by direct revelation and not from any human authority) is the announcement that Jesus incarnated, died, and rose in the celestial realm and not on earth (in keeping with the many of dying-and-rising celestial gods of the time).
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't buy Carrier's thesis at all.
 
RJM said:
I know it may be taking the thread a bit too far off topic, but an example of this confirmation bias is ...
Click to expand...
From searches over the last couple od days, it seems conformation bias is Carrier's modus operandi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
The XYL said:
Carrier's Mythicism is about what he believes Paul believed, not about what Carrier himself believes. He is arguing for a Pauline position that he himself does not think is true.
Click to expand...
Nor does mainstream scholarship believe what Carrier believes about what Paul believes is true or accurate.

Discussing a Carrier thesis might be fun rabbit-hole if anyone's interested, but I don't think we should let it derail this thread.

I'd like to put the whole Carrier thing to one side, and have @The XYL lay out his mythicism.
 
Thomas said:
I'd like to put the whole Carrier thing to one side, and have @The XYL lay out his mythicism.
Click to expand...
And perhaps a bit more about the actual functioning of the new cult. What would the services look like? What readings?
 
Longfellow said:
"It is an authoritarian document, front to back, that simply proclaims all its writers’ claims are true and not to be significantly questioned—writers who were demonstrably extremely primitive and ignorant in their actual understanding of people and the world."

He says that all of its writers, that would include Paul, were extremely primitive and ignorant in their actual understanding of people and the world. That means that even if he's reading Paul correctly, especially if he's reading Paul correctly, Paul's Jesus would be based on a primitive and ignorant understanding of people and the world.
Click to expand...
Presumably he assumes, like many of us, that he is less primitive and has greater understanding of people and the world.

This is not a safe assumption.
 
Longfellow cites Carrier:
"It is an authoritarian document, front to back, that simply proclaims all its writers’ claims are true and not to be significantly questioned—writers who were demonstrably extremely primitive and ignorant in their actual understanding of people and the world."

That being the case, then logically those mythicist tales that formed no part of any 1st century canon, were the more extreme and fringe elements of a broad spectrum of beliefs, and were perceived by people of the day as such, given that they had a range of possibilities to choose from, and the 'canonical' was the mainstream?

A belief of these "extremely primitive and ignorant" people (which I believe is ignorant and offensive) was the concept of 'as above, so below' – which means that anything that happens in the heavens also has its counterpart here in the world, which rather undoes Carrier's thesis.
 
No long sermons. If at all, keep it short -- five minutes max, imo
 
RJM said:
No long sermons. If at all, keep it short -- five minutes max, imo
Click to expand...
To me, the optimum is a 15-20 minute talk on how using an understanding of the belief helps you with coping with reality, makes you a better person and caretaker for your family, neighbors, friends, community, environment, world...

And then 20 minutes of QnA live with the attendees.

(But always know the holy hand grenade is there)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
wil said:
To me, the optimum is a 15-20 minute talk on how using an understanding of the belief helps you with coping with reality, makes you a better person and caretaker for your family, neighbors, friends, community, environment, world...

And then 20 minutes of QnA live with the attendees.

(But always know the holy hand grenade is there)
Click to expand...
I think making the sermon the centre of the worship service is wrong. To me it's the whole problem with the protestant evangelical movement. It makes the personality and oratory of the 'pastor' or whatever, the main magnet. That's why the USA has thousands of different separate churches, each with its own charismatic pastor.

The centre of the Catholic mass is the Eucharistic sacrament. It is the sacrament of Christ himself. The priest is ordained by God to administer the sacrament where Christ promises to be present. All the readings and music and liturgy are secondary. The sermon is peripheral, imo.

Sorry I hope this isn't seen as proselytising.

People can always talk to a priest if they seek advice or counsel. Parishioner Q&A sessions are church hall business over coffee after the service and not part of it.

Just my own opinion ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top