An Abstract Mythicist Hypothesis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainache (Post 11583993) My questions were for McReal as I was trying to get an outline of how he thought Christianity came about in the absence of a flesh and blood Jesus.

I think the NT texts arose over time out of a Gnostic/Jewish/pagan millieu after the First Jewish War. I think they represent new theology that arose in response to the Jewish/Hebrew distress over the Fall of the Temple; as a result of various groups of the Diapora being placed in pagan or Gnostic communities where a new syncretic theology developed; through various interactions of various communities over time.

The Pauline texts represented one community (or maybe two) that was/were largely Gnostic-Docetic, and the other 14 books of the NT represented at least two other communities, at least one of which was strongly Judaic, and at least one was also mixed Jewish & Gnostic or Docetic.

Some of these communities would have had concepts of dual gods, a la Marcionism - Marcionism was probably a continuation of one of these communities; as may have been the Ebionites, the Nazoreans, etc. Various names would have been given to these the entities they were focusing on. Christ was probably one of them.

The writings of Irenaeus, particularly Against Heresies, show there were still different perceptions in different communities of the nature of the Savior entity, and how concrete He was, over a long period of time: at least through to the end of the 2nd century; and maybe until after the Council of Nicea.

Eventually the idea of a Savior-angel-god-man became universal, and that entity was eventually portrayed as having been on earth as a human ie. in the image of God who was ironically in the image of man.

The NT writers likely co-opted, yet re-wrote, various figures & events of the 1st century, and maybe later, and probably included stories of various preacher dudes wandering around transmitting these stories when they were being developed or when they were evolving or both. One may have even been a Jesus of Galilee of even of Nazareth, but much much later than the late 20s/30s a.d

Because such a savior could not restore the Temple in Jerusalem in the times these stories were being developed (or elsewhere, b/c Diasporic Jewish groups were not dominant in their new communities), He had to be placed in time before the Fall of the Temple (the Fall of the Temple mimicking The Fall of Man as brought about by Adam), but with prophetic traits/narratives that were positive, and thus attractive to those hearing them, and with the prospect of a 2nd Coming. With King Agrippa being popular and overseeing a period of stability, and zealot uprisings increasing after his death, Jesus Christ had to be placed before Agrippa. The Resurrection narrative confirmed He was a dying-rising God capable of rising again.

via International Skeptics Forum http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313865&goto=newpost