RE: Does Jesus Mythicism give atheism a bad name?
May 8, 2016 at 2:44 am
(This post was last modified: May 8, 2016 at 2:49 am by TheRocketSurgeon.)
Well, I'm not a Mythicist, but I agree that the concept of Q is highly speculative, for reasons already mentioned (thanks, Min). Even if you accept the Q-document as actually being a real thing, it's just evidence for a very human (non-magical) guy, and not for the "Son of God" depicted by the time the myth had built up nearly a century later, with the writing of John.
From the Wiki article you cited,
"The Q document must have been composed before Matthew and Luke. Some scholars even suggest that Q predated Mark. A date for the final Q document is often placed in the 40s or 50s of the first century, with some arguing its so-called sapiential layer (1Q, containing six wisdom speeches) was written as early as the 30s.
If Q existed it has since been lost. Some scholars believe it can be partially reconstructed by examining elements common to Matthew and Luke (but absent from Mark). This reconstructed Q does not describe the events of Jesus' life: Q does not mention Jesus' birth, his selection of the 12 disciples, his crucifixion, or the resurrection. Instead, it appears to be a collection of Jesus' sayings and quotations."
(Emphasis mine.)
In other words, it supports my working hypothesis that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who developed a cult following, due to the fear-culture among the Hebrews at the time, in the wake of the Roman takeover of Judea. Keep in mind that the Hebrews were in open rebellion only a few decades after Jesus' death. There is some fair inference, I think, that the collection of Jesus' sayings, such as the Sermon on the Mount, were legitimate. He would doubtless have attracted followers who considered him the Messiah, even if the real Jewish scholars would have laughed at the idea (since he really doesn't fit the attributes, even after all the post-death fiddling by Christian storycrafters). After his execution for "rabble rousing" against the "rightful rule of Rome" (as the Romans would have seen it), when they killed him like a common criminal, this loss of the "Messiah" cult-leader required explanation among the Believers, and it's not hard to see how the traumatized followers would start crafting ever-increasing stories of how amazing he was, which led to more claims of magic, which led by the time of the Gospel of John's writing to actually calling him God incarnate.
The pattern of myth-building should be obvious to anyone.
Edit to Add: The most sneer-inducing amusement, to me, is when Christian apologists try to point to the writings of the early church fathers, all written at the time of or much after the time of the writing of John, at the point when the myth-building was at its highest peak, as "evidence" that the Gospels are legitimate, since the Orthodox fathers were of course the very people promoting the Jesus-as-God story that had been developed by that time. It speaks absolutely zero about what the early Christians thought, almost a century before, any more than we could speak on what our great grandparents thought about as twentysomethings.
From the Wiki article you cited,
"The Q document must have been composed before Matthew and Luke. Some scholars even suggest that Q predated Mark. A date for the final Q document is often placed in the 40s or 50s of the first century, with some arguing its so-called sapiential layer (1Q, containing six wisdom speeches) was written as early as the 30s.
If Q existed it has since been lost. Some scholars believe it can be partially reconstructed by examining elements common to Matthew and Luke (but absent from Mark). This reconstructed Q does not describe the events of Jesus' life: Q does not mention Jesus' birth, his selection of the 12 disciples, his crucifixion, or the resurrection. Instead, it appears to be a collection of Jesus' sayings and quotations."
(Emphasis mine.)
In other words, it supports my working hypothesis that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who developed a cult following, due to the fear-culture among the Hebrews at the time, in the wake of the Roman takeover of Judea. Keep in mind that the Hebrews were in open rebellion only a few decades after Jesus' death. There is some fair inference, I think, that the collection of Jesus' sayings, such as the Sermon on the Mount, were legitimate. He would doubtless have attracted followers who considered him the Messiah, even if the real Jewish scholars would have laughed at the idea (since he really doesn't fit the attributes, even after all the post-death fiddling by Christian storycrafters). After his execution for "rabble rousing" against the "rightful rule of Rome" (as the Romans would have seen it), when they killed him like a common criminal, this loss of the "Messiah" cult-leader required explanation among the Believers, and it's not hard to see how the traumatized followers would start crafting ever-increasing stories of how amazing he was, which led to more claims of magic, which led by the time of the Gospel of John's writing to actually calling him God incarnate.
The pattern of myth-building should be obvious to anyone.
Edit to Add: The most sneer-inducing amusement, to me, is when Christian apologists try to point to the writings of the early church fathers, all written at the time of or much after the time of the writing of John, at the point when the myth-building was at its highest peak, as "evidence" that the Gospels are legitimate, since the Orthodox fathers were of course the very people promoting the Jesus-as-God story that had been developed by that time. It speaks absolutely zero about what the early Christians thought, almost a century before, any more than we could speak on what our great grandparents thought about as twentysomethings.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
