RE: Didn't Nero launch Christianity?
April 16, 2019 at 12:40 pm
(This post was last modified: April 16, 2019 at 1:20 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Marcion rejected the notion that the apparition of the Alls agent was the messiah -or- a man. Yahweh was the alien god, evil and cruel. Christ was a manifestation of the divine.
The answer to my question, clearly, is no. You don't understand..and since you're unwilling to work from a basis of common and easily researched facts it's unlikely that this discussion will produce any insight beyond how thoroughly superstitions like yours prevent any useful discussion of the historicity of jesus, or the development of the christian faith.
For the rest of those participating, those that have two brain cells to rub together - it's commonly thought that mythicists reject the idea that there were people who believed that jesus was a man. They don't. They note that some of the earliest luminaries did not believe in a historical jesus, and that myths commonly are historicized after the fact. Sometimes with the use of actual people as templates. The mythicist position is that the story began as a narrative about a divine apparition, regardless of whether later sects historicized it and converted the myth to a legnd, and from legend into assumed reality - as the presence of our resident believers certainly attests to in any case.
Historicists and mythicists both assert that much myth and legend making surrounds jesus and christ, they differ, ultimately - in whether or not a real man preceeded the myths and legends, or some real man (or many men) were later atached to those same myths and legends.
The christian persecutions are another example of the same. At best, legend mistaken for fact, but more likely myth converted to legend laundered as fact. A contemporary manifestation of this phenomena would be any instance in which an urban myth, in the fullness of time, takes on the air of a historical fact, or basis in historical fact.
Welfare queens, as a handy example. Was there ever any actual person that this story was based on? No. The idea of the welfare queen was a handy preexisting fiction that found life in one Linda Taylor (who wasn't a welfare queen at all, she was much, much better than that, lol). That later found life in many other people..everywhere believers of welfare queens looked there was another welfare queen. The purpose of the welfare queen narrative was not to record any true thing or true person, but to express an ideological position - but people believed and still believe in them nevertheless. The face of that welfare queen and her assumed positions validating whatever cultural biases we possess in any given decade.
The answer to my question, clearly, is no. You don't understand..and since you're unwilling to work from a basis of common and easily researched facts it's unlikely that this discussion will produce any insight beyond how thoroughly superstitions like yours prevent any useful discussion of the historicity of jesus, or the development of the christian faith.
For the rest of those participating, those that have two brain cells to rub together - it's commonly thought that mythicists reject the idea that there were people who believed that jesus was a man. They don't. They note that some of the earliest luminaries did not believe in a historical jesus, and that myths commonly are historicized after the fact. Sometimes with the use of actual people as templates. The mythicist position is that the story began as a narrative about a divine apparition, regardless of whether later sects historicized it and converted the myth to a legnd, and from legend into assumed reality - as the presence of our resident believers certainly attests to in any case.
Historicists and mythicists both assert that much myth and legend making surrounds jesus and christ, they differ, ultimately - in whether or not a real man preceeded the myths and legends, or some real man (or many men) were later atached to those same myths and legends.
The christian persecutions are another example of the same. At best, legend mistaken for fact, but more likely myth converted to legend laundered as fact. A contemporary manifestation of this phenomena would be any instance in which an urban myth, in the fullness of time, takes on the air of a historical fact, or basis in historical fact.
Welfare queens, as a handy example. Was there ever any actual person that this story was based on? No. The idea of the welfare queen was a handy preexisting fiction that found life in one Linda Taylor (who wasn't a welfare queen at all, she was much, much better than that, lol). That later found life in many other people..everywhere believers of welfare queens looked there was another welfare queen. The purpose of the welfare queen narrative was not to record any true thing or true person, but to express an ideological position - but people believed and still believe in them nevertheless. The face of that welfare queen and her assumed positions validating whatever cultural biases we possess in any given decade.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
