it is mythicism insofar a denial of the existence of the Son is also meant to implicate Jesus.This is not 'mythicism' in any normal sense.
See a similar point here:
In addition, the identity between Son and Father dates back to the invention of Barabbas.However, I'm struck again by some of the particular wording of this text, which might mean that there truly were people who did not believe in the existence of "the true Prophet" (i.e. Jesus). Indeed, if the group who produced this text presented Jesus as "the true Prophet," this is quite what you'd expect a denial of the claim of his existence to look like: a denial of the existence of the true Prophet (much the same way saying that Christ didn't exist, e.g. in Arthur Drews' formulation, "The Christ Myth," is also meant to implicate Jesus).
Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Fri Feb 09, 2024 7:13 am