Christ Mythicism: Recommended Reading

[christian1724]

Niblo, like TESmith is a doomed pagan destined for destruction when Jesus returns and then the second death on Judgment Day.
As a self confesssed anti-christ they both need banning from this forum

Surely you must already know that Paul was not a believer in Christ and participated in the deaths of early Christians. I think we have to be careful not to cross anyone out of the book of life, we couldn't know that.

That's just not our call to make and it's dangerous to declare someone 'doomed' or unfit for anything but destruction.

 

[Niblo]

Surely you must already know that Paul was not a believer in Christ and participated in the deaths of early Christians. I think we have to be careful not to cross anyone out of the book of life, we couldn't know that.

That's just not our call to make and it's dangerous to declare someone 'doomed' or unfit for anything but destruction.

XRose is mistaken, in that I am neither a pagan nor a mythist.

Perhaps she has misunderstood my reference to Father Christmas – undoubtedly a mythical person (Post 5).

This reference was made in response to @T.E. Smith’s remark that it is ‘reasonable to describe a person or thing as a myth, not just to describe a story as a myth.’ (Post 3).

If my comment has created the impression that I regard Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) as being no more real than Santa Claus, then the fault is mine; for which I can only apologise.

Peace.

 

[T. E. Smith]

XRose is mistaken, in that I am neither a pagan nor a mythist.

Perhaps she has misunderstood my reference to Father Christmas – undoubtedly a mythical person (Post 5).

This reference was made in response to @T.E. Smith’s remark that it is ‘reasonable to describe a person or thing as a myth, not just to describe a story as a myth.’ (Post 3).

If my comment has created the impression that I regard Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) as being no more real than Santa Claus, then the fault is mine; for which I can only apologise.

Peace.

She saw you marked No to being a Christian, and "pagan" to her is an insult meaning "nonbeliever".

 

[Niblo]

She saw you marked No to being a Christian, and "pagan" to her is an insult meaning "nonbeliever".

I thought as much....but could well be mistaken! 2

 

[christian1724]

XRose is mistaken, in that I am neither a pagan nor a mythist.

Perhaps she has misunderstood my reference to Father Christmas – undoubtedly a mythical person (Post 5).

This reference was made in response to @T.E. Smith’s remark that it is ‘reasonable to describe a person or thing as a myth, not just to describe a story as a myth.’ (Post 3).

If my comment has created the impression that I regard Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) as being no more real than Santa Claus, then the fault is mine; for which I can only apologise.

Peace.

I'm not really familiar with your position. I was just butting in to express my concern for hers ( Matthew 5:22 ). Also, if you consider a person irredeemable then expressing that sort of statement is somewhat of a contradiction to it's content. You have to question whether or not she believed that.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Hey Niblo out of curiosity, what is your religion?

 

[Niblo]

I'm not really familiar with your position. I was just butting in to express my concern for hers ( Matthew 5:22 ). Also, if you consider a person irredeemable then expressing that sort of statement is somewhat of a contradiction to it's content. You have to question whether or not she believed that.

I've no objection to you 'butting in'. Your comment was both fair, and reasonable.

I don't happen to believe that anyone is irredeemable.

Peace.

 

[Niblo]

Hey Niblo out of curiosity, what is your religion?

Islam.....after decades as a Christian. Worse than a pagan, then!

 

[T. E. Smith]

Islam.....after decades as a Christian. Worse than a pagan, then!

lol, definitely much worse. :P

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Exactly. Father Christmas is a myth; perhaps the first- and most persuasive - lie that parents tell their kids.

By saying "exactly," it looks like you're trying to seem like you agree with something I said. But from what you say after that, it is clear that you are not in agreement with anything I've said in this thread. And, I'm not trying to burn you by saying this, but you, clearly, have not understood what I've been saying in this thread. Please don't imagine I'm trying to offend you by saying that; believe me, it's not like I think you, or anyone else, must be mentally deficient for failing, right off the bat, to get what I'm saying. I'm talking about something most people have never thought about, an irrational feature of popular language usage.

In my posts addressed to Smith, I stated that no man is a myth, because a myth is composed of words, whereas (as Smith, himself, even told me) a man is composed of flesh and blood. A man is not composed of words, and a myth is not composed of flesh and blood. No man is a myth; no myth is a man. Smith seems to not have liked it one bit that I stated that no man is a myth, and he obviously lacked the patience to try to understand why I state that no man is a myth, since he chose, instead, to throw abusive language at me, and to stonewall against the questions I was asking him about what he had said. He's apparently laid himself down to sleep at the feet of those "scholars" who promote what he calls "Christ Mythicism," and his reaction to what I've been saying basically amounts to a sign hanging on the door of a bedroom that reads, "Go away! I'm trying to sleep!"

"Father Christmas is a myth"

If, by your phrase, "Father Christmas," you are referring to some man, then, in saying "Father Christmas is a myth," you are expressing a falsehood, since no man is a myth. It is false that some (any) man whom you may happen to be calling "Father Christmas" is a myth, since no man is a myth.

"Father Christmas is a...lie that parents tell their kids."

If, by your phrase, "Father Christmas," you are referring to some man, then, in saying "Father Christmas is a lie," you are expressing a falsehood, since no man is a lie. It is false that some (any) man whom you may happen to be calling "Father Christmas" is a lie, since no man is a lie. A man can lie. A man can be a hardened, shameless liar. But no man is, himself, a lie.

For my part, I do not call any man "Father Christmas," or "Santa Claus." But, again, as I've said, if someone does happen to use the phrase, "Father Christmas," or "Santa Claus," to refer to some man, then, in doing so, since they are referring to a man, they are not referring to a myth.

 

[Niblo]

By saying "exactly," it looks like you're trying to seem like you agree with something I said. But from what you say after that, it is clear that you are not in agreement with anything I've said in this thread. And, I'm not trying to burn you by saying this, but you, clearly, have not understood what I've been saying in this thread. Please don't imagine I'm trying to offend you by saying that; believe me, it's not like I think you, or anyone else, must be mentally deficient for failing, right off the bat, to get what I'm saying. I'm talking about something most people have never thought about, an irrational feature of popular language usage.

In my posts addressed to Smith, I stated that no man is a myth, because a myth is composed of words, whereas (as Smith, himself, even told me) a man is composed of flesh and blood. A man is not composed of words, and a myth is not composed of flesh and blood. No man is a myth; no myth is a man. Smith seems to not have liked it one bit that I stated that no man is a myth, and he obviously lacked the patience to try to understand why I state that no man is a myth, since he chose, instead, to throw abusive language at me, and to stonewall against the questions I was asking him about what he had said. He's apparently laid himself down to sleep at the feet of those "scholars" who promote what he calls "Christ Mythicism," and his reaction to what I've been saying basically amounts to a sign hanging on the door of a bedroom that reads, "Go away! I'm trying to sleep!"

"Father Christmas is a myth"

If, by your phrase, "Father Christmas," you are referring to some man, then, in saying "Father Christmas is a myth," you are expressing a falsehood, since no man is a myth. It is false that some (any) man whom you may happen to be calling "Father Christmas" is a myth, since no man is a myth.

"Father Christmas is a...lie that parents tell their kids."

If, by your phrase, "Father Christmas," you are referring to some man, then, in saying "Father Christmas is a lie," you are expressing a falsehood, since no man is a lie. It is false that some (any) man whom you may happen to be calling "Father Christmas" is a lie, since no man is a lie. A man can lie. A man can be a hardened, shameless liar. But no man is, himself, a lie.

For my part, I do not call any man "Father Christmas," or "Santa Claus." But, again, as I've said, if someone does happen to use the phrase, "Father Christmas," or "Santa Claus," to refer to some man, then, in doing so, since they are referring to a man, they are not referring to a myth.

Father Christmas (Santa Claus, if you prefer) is a myth ..a fiction...and therefore not a man. Nevertheless, he is portrayed as such, and is very real to those who believe in him.

I've already explained my reason for writing of him.

There are those who believe that
Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) is also a myth; no more a reality than SC or the Tooth Fairy. I do not share this belief.

There really is nothing else to say.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Father Christmas (Santa Claus, if you prefer) is a myth ..a fiction...and therefore not a man. Nevertheless, he is portrayed as such, and is very real to those who believe in him.

I've already explained my reason for writing of him.

To whom are you referring by your pronouns, "he," and "him," since, as you admit, you are not referring to a man? Since a myth is not a person, why would you refer to a myth using personal pronouns?

Also, note that you have just now agreed with me (in direct contradiction to what T. E. Smith asserts) by your admission that a myth—because it is a myth—is "therefore not a man." No myth can be/is a man, no man can be/is a myth. But, against this truth, T. E. Smith asserts the falsehood that a man can be a myth:

To the first, no by definition, but a man can be mythical and a myth.

Thank you for your time, too.

 

[T. E. Smith]

To reiterate the Oxford definition of a myth (one possible definition): "A fictitious or imaginary person or thing." We use this terminology easily. Consider the sentence, "The Loch Ness monster is a myth." Is that a linguistically incorrect statement? Of course not.

 

[for_his_glory]

The question: did Jesus (an important figure in church history) ever exist? This is a list of books by people who don't think so.

I am jumping in on page 5, but going back to the beginning of page one for my first comment. T.E. you have made the statement many times you do not believe in God or His Son Christ Jesus, but now trying to convince us with what man has written in their books who also do not believe, but think He is just a made up story.

Now let me ask you a question. Since you have never sought Jesus or have allowed Him time to prove Himself to you than how do you know He is not real?

 

[for_his_glory]

He has written an extensive work on philosophy, but most of his stuff is history. Including books about science in the Roman empire. E.T.? Lol, extraterrestrial?
Carrier would describe religion as a type of philosophy. But it's really just semantics. Call it what you like.

These books you read are only the thoughts of those who wrote them without any proof because they refuse to believe in a supreme being of all of creation and only calling it myths. These are only their thoughts for they do not know the Lord. I have written two books, which I have never published, as one is all about Biblical teachings of Christ including history of the actual Empires, cultures and eras that have been proven within history and archeology findings.

Christianity has nothing to do with philosophy, but actualities as we become Christlike knowing for a fact He is very real to us, especially in the witness and testimonies that myself and others give just like the Prophets who walked in obedience to God and Disciples who literally walked with Jesus. None of us today knows what Jesus looks like, but we have seen His power, authority, miraculous miracles that are brought about through prayer and know the promises of God are yea and amen.

We speak of what we know, what we have seen and what we have heard, not by man, but by God's very Spirit revealing Himself to us not only by His word, but by His power and glory in our lives. I don't know how many times I walked away from Him thinking He was not real because I went through so many bad things in my life and why would a good God let bad things happen to me. It took me many years to understand why I had to go through these bad things, but found out why as it brought me back to God as I literally cried out to Him and gave Him the time to talk to me. I only gave you a small part of my testimony in PM, but there is so much more to it.

Am I perfect, no, but being perfected everyday. Do I still go through trails and tribulations, yes, but God walks with me through them all as He gives me the victory through Christ who overcame the world for us that we can live a life that is pleasing to Him.

I pray you do not completely shut your heart up to Him, but to keep on seeking, questioning and reading His word as you do have the word of God, but not in your heart yet.

 

[for_his_glory]

Edward and jasonc This thread is not about Mormonism. Please stop derailing this thread. Thank you. Anymore post on this will be deleted.

 

[for_his_glory]

Yeah this kind of thing is what happen on those Christian sites sometimes. Those darn Christians, huh? Wait, I thought you said you could handle Christians? Even enlighten them, lol. So why the big deal?

I find the original topic to be out of place on a website such as this. Your entire premise is to teach that Christ was a myth and did not exist....to a bunch of Christians!! It's an antithetical topic that isn't worth discussing and is certainly outside the norm of the usual type discussions found on Christian web boards. I think you made a bad choice. Some wonder why you haven't been banned yet. It could still happen if you get to uppity with tripe philosophies. I thin it's apparent that they are being very very patient with you.
(that's a lot of compassion if you think about it.)

I'm sorry little brother. You can have your thread back.

Edward, T. E. Smith thread is as important as any other thread as these are things he believes at such a young age. What he speaks of should be challenging us to speak truth through the word of God to help teach him the ways of God instead of belittling him. Derogatory remarks will only push one further away from truth. Please speak with a heart of love as Jesus would want you to do or just refrain from replying to him in the future as it brings the worse out in you.

 

[jasonc]

Edward and jasonc This thread is not about Mormonism. Please stop derailing this thread. Thank you. Anymore post on this will be deleted.

I have not posted in two days on it

 

[Edward]

Edward and jasonc This thread is not about Mormonism. Please stop derailing this thread. Thank you. Anymore post on this will be deleted.

That was a couple days ago! We're past that...

He called me a Mormon!!!

Nevertheless, no more Mormon. Thank you. I mean, Please, lol.

 

[for_his_glory]

This is a catch-22. I've done my research. I've come to my conclusions.

You seek after only the carnal mind of men drawing your own logical conclusions that make sense to you by what they write in their books. Spiritual things of God seem foolish to those who have no Spiritual discernment as the carnal mind is a hostile enemy against God and refuses to get to know Him.