9 ms·

I gather that serious historians consider the mystical writings of Paul as primary, followed much later by realization of the need to invent a figure of Jesus t

by ncmncm 5y ago

I gather that serious historians consider the mystical writings of Paul as primary, followed much later by realization of the need to invent a figure of Jesus to have been heard to dictate doctrine; and then to invent apostles to have witnessed it; and finally invent a timeline of dictation events. Gospels would then have been variant versions of this timeline, preached at different jurisdictions, that then had to all be retained as each had already developed a regional constituency, with no one of them finally able to dominate.

gregw2 5y ago
Interesting. But Jesus being invented post-Paul to dictate doctrine just doesn't make any sense to me. First, Jesus and his resurrection is central to Paul's teachings, not an optional addon restricted to a few bits of text. Second, Paul is much more doctrinaire than Jesus. And third, parable-based teaching is probably not an ideal form for transmitting doctrine because previous writings weren't doctrinaire enough, right?
- Amezarak 5y ago
  Yes, this is certainly not anything approaching the consensus of "serious historians", this sounds like a crank theory put out likely by a single individual who is publishing popular books on the subject. The Pauline epistles are indeed though usually cited as the works in the New Testament that were the earliest written down, but there's plenty of reason to doubt the academic consensus, which has shifted over time, and like all historical subjects, somewhat subject to fads. (After all, you can't gain notoriety or publish a new paper that simply says "yeah, what's written is likely true, or the closest approximation to the truth we're likely to ever have, and the people who came before me were right.) Take the Gospel of Mark, usually cited as the earliest gospel. One of the strongest held reasons that it's believed to have been written after 70 AD is because Jesus prophesies what sounds like the Siege of Jerusalem. That's it. It certainly doesn't seem crazy even from a one hundred percent secular worldview that Jesus correctly or even accidentally predicted the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans via one hundred percent natural means, given the contemporary political situation. If anything, you can understand how the 1 of 100 prophets who completely by chance made an accurate prediction would become more popular afterward. Or consider the gospel of John - one of the strongest held arguments against Johannine authorship is about the only biographical information we know about him is that he's a fisherman, and the author of John sounds like an intelligent Greek writer. That's it. I don't think it's radically implausible that he may have been employed at the time as a fisherman, and still had an educated background. Scholars usually call it "anonymous", even though the author clearly focuses on John and refers to him in a special way..and the ends the book by claiming that this is the disciple which testifies these things, and wrote these things. He also repeatedly humblebrags that John beat Peter in race...the kind of detail that doesn't seem like a religious community would find worth highlighting. It's also not surprising that different accounts of something that occurred over a long timespan contain differences or highlight different things. You see this all the time from eyewitnesses today and throughout history. I was just reading the Landmark Edition of Anabasis that just came out, and there's a whole appendix about how Xenophon and Cyrus's doctor narrate a battle differently and make different claims about how Cyrus was wounded. But they were both eyewitnesses, or the closest to it you could ever hope to get for an event that happened 2500 years ago.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Reminds me of all the hoorah over Shakespeare- summed up by Wodehouse that “Shakespeare wasn’t written by Shakespeare but someone else with the same name.”
    - Amezarak 5y ago
      Yes, and it looks like the article is the same type of thing. The author in the first section presumes that the only available historical accounts are all wrong, and that the early Christians needed to find a reason why Pilate didn’t suffer horribly so they redacted the record to absolve him. But supposing the only available historical accounts are loosely accurate, there was no need to absolve him, even assuming the premise that anyone who did bad stuff to Jesus theologically and psychologically had to meet a Bad End. …but uh, there’s also no record of what happened to Caiaphas in the gospels. Presumably he didn’t meet a grisly fate either, and he’s certainly blamed by the gospels much more than Pilate. You can do anything reasoning backwards from the desired conclusions, and that’s what a lot of historiography is.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      I think Wodehouse was riffing on people saying the Odyssey was written not by Homer, but by another poet with the same name, an idea taken more or less seriously, then and still. But a need for a historical Jesus, and accompanying apostolic drama, in order to support your spiritual doctrine is hard to understand. Either it's right or it's wrong, either you have faith or you don't, whether it was written down right then or only centuries later.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    How is the new Anabasis? I love that book but can’t recommend it to non nerds because it doesn’t flow quite right for a modern book. Education of Cyrus similarly. I LOVE these books but they take a little patience. Ironically, the Socratic Dialogues of Xenophon read easier than Plato’s. Now, Golden Ass (Apuleius- trans. Robert Graves) reads like a modern book. Amazing.
    - 5y ago
- ncmncm 5y ago
  I understand the centrality of the god-figure's death and resurrection, following the Osiris tradition cemented millennia before the time of the hebraic patriarchy. But it is one thing to be killed and resurrected, and wholly another to be recorded gadding around preaching doctrine, first. I don't think there is anything in Paul about that. That Paul does not encompass the whole of later writing is far from surprising. Making a new religion is hard and thirsty work, and you don't know what will be needed until you have got congregations and sees together, and seen what would need shoring up. I have also seen how the whole "redeeming original sin" rationale for the resurrection stunt was invented maybe centuries later, and that various sects had numerous other theories about it, until it was recognized that the question was causing too much dissension, and one theory had to be picked to rally around. I get that people can be upset at discussion of possible ahistoricity of a Jesus figure. I can't see how anybody who has faith could be upset about it, though; to be upset about it, it seems to me you would have to have doubts yourself, and fear that discussion might turn up more facts that would cause you even more doubt. In any case, citations of documentary evidence all of which was in the possession of the Church for millennia, and which it generally would have had to take initiative to transcribe before its paper rotted and crumbled, cannot establish any objective authority. The Church is the prototypical Interested Party. Certainly we have copious examples of forgery both early and late, so we need more than ordinary attestation to establish facts.
  - anjbe 5y ago
    > I can't see how anybody who has faith could be upset about it, though; to be upset about it, it seems to me you would have to have doubts yourself, and fear that discussion might turn up more facts that would cause you even more doubt. If the only motive you can attribute to your ideological opponents is one that confirms your views and would be embarrassing to them (e.g., “religious people don’t actually believe what they say they believe”), it is worth considering the possibility that you haven’t actually made a sincere effort to understand their views.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      I don't see people upset at the idea as opponents, ideological or otherwise. They have spelled out their position, and I accept it at face value. But they are not really participating in the discussion, which is about facts. However, I have just read a fair bit of Tim O'Neill's writing, and recognize I will need to read more deeply to be able to hold a non-laughable opinion.
throw0101a 5y ago
> realization of the need to invent a figure of Jesus There seems to be very little doubt in academic circles on the whether a Jesus of Nazareth existed: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus What you are espousing is referred to as "Jesus mythicism": * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory Tim O’Neill (an atheist) has an entire section of his weblog on the topic (and why it's generally non-sense): * https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/ https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/
- infradig 5y ago
  This Tim O'Neil? https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14324 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14324
  - anjbe 5y ago
    Richard Carrier is about the least disinterested individual one could cite on the subject of Jesus mythicism. His “celestial Jesus” view requires an ahistorical Jesus, which plausibly explains his vociferous attacks against anyone holding the mainstream (secular!) view that Jesus was a real person.
    - infradig 5y ago
      I have no opinion on Richard Carriers's views. My comment was his opinion on Tim O'Neill's views since that was relevant.
      - anjbe 5y ago
        In the first paragraph of the link you posted, Richard Carrier calls Tim O’Neill “an asscrank, a total tinfoil hatter, filled with slanderous rage and void of any competence and honesty.” Surely if Carrier’s opinion of O’Neill is relevant to whether O’Neill is a trustworthy opinion on the subject of Jesus mythicism, then Carrier’s own lack of neutrality on the topic is at least as relevant, as is the fact that his views on mythicism are considered far out of the mainstream by his own peers.
DonaldFisk 5y ago
Jesus is mentioned by Roman and Jewish historians. See: https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/ https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the... and: https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/ https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the... and also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus which states: "Virtually all biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted"
- throw0101a 5y ago
  The two Strange Notions articles are written by Tim O'Neill who has his own site: * https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/ https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    That's a cool source, do you happen to know of any biblical annotation sources that follow the same format (i.e. athiest, but confidently so, and so don't need to go further than the historical record at the time, and with the historical chops to give context).
- ncmncm 5y ago
  I am finding all the Tim O'Neill material tendentious. His slant seems to be that he desperately wants to be taken seriously by former and soon-to-be former Christians, so anything that would embarrass them cannot be allowed.
throw__away7391 5y ago
Pilate is a critical figure to the marketing of Christianity to the Roman world, as in a couple of weird, awkwardly inserted passages completely absolves the Roman government of responsibility and solidly lays it all on the Jews. The TL;DR goes like this: Pilate: Guys, this Jesus dude is totally innocent. Jews: Kill him anyway! Pilate: OK, well how about this--between him and this notorious murderer, who should I pardon? Jews: Release the murderer! Kill Jesus! Pilate: Gee, ok fine, but this is all on you guys. Jews: Yes! His blood is on us and our descendants! Then least there be any doubt, he _literally_ asks for water to be brought and "washes his hands" of the decision. It's absolutely the stupidest thing you'll ever read. It is such an obvious after the fact fabrication, it sounds like it was written by a child, and yet this story has been used over the centuries to justify a great deal of violence towards Jews at the hands of Christians.
- Amezarak 5y ago
  There’s nothing awkward about that “insertion” at all, Jesus repeatedly insists over the course of the gospels that the Jewish authorities are going to kill him, they actually attempt to stone him at multiple points, and he tells lots of parables to enrage them that also include this feature, such as the parable of the vineyard, where the keepers kill the master’s son, and then the master comes and kills them all. And he accuses them of killing all the other prophets too! And of course you end up having to change the whole narrative to sustain this, too - the charges of blasphemy, the betrayal of Judas, etc. The argument that the passages you cite are insertions just makes no sense, they are totally in keeping with all the rest. If you want to say it’s all inspired anti-semitism, fair enough and there’s probably some truth to it, but there’s no reason to think that those passages alone are fake. It’s probably also worth keeping in mind that the people who wrote this were probably also all Jewish.
  - throw__away7391 5y ago
    > they actually attempt to stone him at multiple points Right, so they are also alleged to have killed others, and suddenly for Jesus it is claimed that they "don't have the authority" and need Pilate to do it. Written by a child.
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
You can only argue religion with atheists. Everyone else is a stakeholder. Something someone told me at university and it has been remarkably true.
- tomohawk 5y ago
  Atheism is itself a religion, and athiests are definitely stakeholders. Atheists have a definite belief about God - He does not exist. Atheists have a definite belief about the afterlife - it does not exist. These are metaphysical beliefs that cannot be proven by science or any other methods we know of. They must be taken on faith. Historically, when the communist atheists took over countries like Russia, they would hold debates with indigenous religious leaders to try to prove the superiority of their beliefs.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    > Atheism is itself a religion, and athiests are definitely stakeholders. Only if not having anything to drink is a type of soda.
    - tomohawk 5y ago
      Atheism is not "nothing". There are definite metaphysical beliefs that make up Atheism. Atheism is not the empty set. An Atheist doesn't say "I believe in nothing".
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        This is one of those topics that practically defines "moot". But anyway, as a non-atheist, you don't get to say what atheists think. (Also, not capitalized.)
  - city41 5y ago
    Atheism is a spectrum. For example, agnostic atheists do not "definitely believe" there is no god. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
dragonwriter 5y ago
> I gather that serious historians consider the mystical writings of Paul as primary, followed much later by realization of the need to invent a figure of Jesus to have been heard to dictate doctrine; and then to invent apostles to have witnessed it; and finally invent a timeline of dictation events. Someone, somewhere may believe that, but it certainly isn't a shared belief of most serious historians (much less something most, or any, serious historians would consider strongly supported by historical evidence.) About the only part of that on which there is broad consensus is that, of the writings incorporated into the scripture, the Pauline corpus is most likely the earliest to have been written in its current form.

by ncmncm 5y ago

gregw2 5y ago

Interesting. But Jesus being invented post-Paul to dictate doctrine just doesn't make any sense to me. First, Jesus and his resurrection is central to Paul's teachings, not an optional addon restricted to a few bits of text. Second, Paul is much more doctrinaire than Jesus. And third, parable-based teaching is probably not an ideal form for transmitting doctrine because previous writings weren't doctrinaire enough, right?

Amezarak 5y ago
Yes, this is certainly not anything approaching the consensus of "serious historians", this sounds like a crank theory put out likely by a single individual who is publishing popular books on the subject. The Pauline epistles are indeed though usually cited as the works in the New Testament that were the earliest written down, but there's plenty of reason to doubt the academic consensus, which has shifted over time, and like all historical subjects, somewhat subject to fads. (After all, you can't gain notoriety or publish a new paper that simply says "yeah, what's written is likely true, or the closest approximation to the truth we're likely to ever have, and the people who came before me were right.) Take the Gospel of Mark, usually cited as the earliest gospel. One of the strongest held reasons that it's believed to have been written after 70 AD is because Jesus prophesies what sounds like the Siege of Jerusalem. That's it. It certainly doesn't seem crazy even from a one hundred percent secular worldview that Jesus correctly or even accidentally predicted the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans via one hundred percent natural means, given the contemporary political situation. If anything, you can understand how the 1 of 100 prophets who completely by chance made an accurate prediction would become more popular afterward. Or consider the gospel of John - one of the strongest held arguments against Johannine authorship is about the only biographical information we know about him is that he's a fisherman, and the author of John sounds like an intelligent Greek writer. That's it. I don't think it's radically implausible that he may have been employed at the time as a fisherman, and still had an educated background. Scholars usually call it "anonymous", even though the author clearly focuses on John and refers to him in a special way..and the ends the book by claiming that this is the disciple which testifies these things, and wrote these things. He also repeatedly humblebrags that John beat Peter in race...the kind of detail that doesn't seem like a religious community would find worth highlighting. It's also not surprising that different accounts of something that occurred over a long timespan contain differences or highlight different things. You see this all the time from eyewitnesses today and throughout history. I was just reading the Landmark Edition of Anabasis that just came out, and there's a whole appendix about how Xenophon and Cyrus's doctor narrate a battle differently and make different claims about how Cyrus was wounded. But they were both eyewitnesses, or the closest to it you could ever hope to get for an event that happened 2500 years ago.
- bombcar 5y ago
  Reminds me of all the hoorah over Shakespeare- summed up by Wodehouse that “Shakespeare wasn’t written by Shakespeare but someone else with the same name.”
  - Amezarak 5y ago
    Yes, and it looks like the article is the same type of thing. The author in the first section presumes that the only available historical accounts are all wrong, and that the early Christians needed to find a reason why Pilate didn’t suffer horribly so they redacted the record to absolve him. But supposing the only available historical accounts are loosely accurate, there was no need to absolve him, even assuming the premise that anyone who did bad stuff to Jesus theologically and psychologically had to meet a Bad End. …but uh, there’s also no record of what happened to Caiaphas in the gospels. Presumably he didn’t meet a grisly fate either, and he’s certainly blamed by the gospels much more than Pilate. You can do anything reasoning backwards from the desired conclusions, and that’s what a lot of historiography is.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    I think Wodehouse was riffing on people saying the Odyssey was written not by Homer, but by another poet with the same name, an idea taken more or less seriously, then and still. But a need for a historical Jesus, and accompanying apostolic drama, in order to support your spiritual doctrine is hard to understand. Either it's right or it's wrong, either you have faith or you don't, whether it was written down right then or only centuries later.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  How is the new Anabasis? I love that book but can’t recommend it to non nerds because it doesn’t flow quite right for a modern book. Education of Cyrus similarly. I LOVE these books but they take a little patience. Ironically, the Socratic Dialogues of Xenophon read easier than Plato’s. Now, Golden Ass (Apuleius- trans. Robert Graves) reads like a modern book. Amazing.
  - 5y ago
ncmncm 5y ago
I understand the centrality of the god-figure's death and resurrection, following the Osiris tradition cemented millennia before the time of the hebraic patriarchy. But it is one thing to be killed and resurrected, and wholly another to be recorded gadding around preaching doctrine, first. I don't think there is anything in Paul about that. That Paul does not encompass the whole of later writing is far from surprising. Making a new religion is hard and thirsty work, and you don't know what will be needed until you have got congregations and sees together, and seen what would need shoring up. I have also seen how the whole "redeeming original sin" rationale for the resurrection stunt was invented maybe centuries later, and that various sects had numerous other theories about it, until it was recognized that the question was causing too much dissension, and one theory had to be picked to rally around. I get that people can be upset at discussion of possible ahistoricity of a Jesus figure. I can't see how anybody who has faith could be upset about it, though; to be upset about it, it seems to me you would have to have doubts yourself, and fear that discussion might turn up more facts that would cause you even more doubt. In any case, citations of documentary evidence all of which was in the possession of the Church for millennia, and which it generally would have had to take initiative to transcribe before its paper rotted and crumbled, cannot establish any objective authority. The Church is the prototypical Interested Party. Certainly we have copious examples of forgery both early and late, so we need more than ordinary attestation to establish facts.
- anjbe 5y ago
  > I can't see how anybody who has faith could be upset about it, though; to be upset about it, it seems to me you would have to have doubts yourself, and fear that discussion might turn up more facts that would cause you even more doubt. If the only motive you can attribute to your ideological opponents is one that confirms your views and would be embarrassing to them (e.g., “religious people don’t actually believe what they say they believe”), it is worth considering the possibility that you haven’t actually made a sincere effort to understand their views.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    I don't see people upset at the idea as opponents, ideological or otherwise. They have spelled out their position, and I accept it at face value. But they are not really participating in the discussion, which is about facts. However, I have just read a fair bit of Tim O'Neill's writing, and recognize I will need to read more deeply to be able to hold a non-laughable opinion.

throw0101a 5y ago

> realization of the need to invent a figure of Jesus There seems to be very little doubt in academic circles on the whether a Jesus of Nazareth existed: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus What you are espousing is referred to as "Jesus mythicism": * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory Tim O’Neill (an atheist) has an entire section of his weblog on the topic (and why it's generally non-sense): * https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/ https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/

infradig 5y ago
This Tim O'Neil? https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14324 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/14324
- anjbe 5y ago
  Richard Carrier is about the least disinterested individual one could cite on the subject of Jesus mythicism. His “celestial Jesus” view requires an ahistorical Jesus, which plausibly explains his vociferous attacks against anyone holding the mainstream (secular!) view that Jesus was a real person.
  - infradig 5y ago
    I have no opinion on Richard Carriers's views. My comment was his opinion on Tim O'Neill's views since that was relevant.
    - anjbe 5y ago
      In the first paragraph of the link you posted, Richard Carrier calls Tim O’Neill “an asscrank, a total tinfoil hatter, filled with slanderous rage and void of any competence and honesty.” Surely if Carrier’s opinion of O’Neill is relevant to whether O’Neill is a trustworthy opinion on the subject of Jesus mythicism, then Carrier’s own lack of neutrality on the topic is at least as relevant, as is the fact that his views on mythicism are considered far out of the mainstream by his own peers.

DonaldFisk 5y ago

Jesus is mentioned by Roman and Jewish historians. See: https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/ https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the... and: https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/ https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the... and also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus which states: "Virtually all biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted"

throw0101a 5y ago
The two Strange Notions articles are written by Tim O'Neill who has his own site: * https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/ https://historyforatheists.com/jesus-mythicism/
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  That's a cool source, do you happen to know of any biblical annotation sources that follow the same format (i.e. athiest, but confidently so, and so don't need to go further than the historical record at the time, and with the historical chops to give context).
ncmncm 5y ago
I am finding all the Tim O'Neill material tendentious. His slant seems to be that he desperately wants to be taken seriously by former and soon-to-be former Christians, so anything that would embarrass them cannot be allowed.

throw__away7391 5y ago

Pilate is a critical figure to the marketing of Christianity to the Roman world, as in a couple of weird, awkwardly inserted passages completely absolves the Roman government of responsibility and solidly lays it all on the Jews. The TL;DR goes like this: Pilate: Guys, this Jesus dude is totally innocent. Jews: Kill him anyway! Pilate: OK, well how about this--between him and this notorious murderer, who should I pardon? Jews: Release the murderer! Kill Jesus! Pilate: Gee, ok fine, but this is all on you guys. Jews: Yes! His blood is on us and our descendants! Then least there be any doubt, he _literally_ asks for water to be brought and "washes his hands" of the decision. It's absolutely the stupidest thing you'll ever read. It is such an obvious after the fact fabrication, it sounds like it was written by a child, and yet this story has been used over the centuries to justify a great deal of violence towards Jews at the hands of Christians.

Amezarak 5y ago
There’s nothing awkward about that “insertion” at all, Jesus repeatedly insists over the course of the gospels that the Jewish authorities are going to kill him, they actually attempt to stone him at multiple points, and he tells lots of parables to enrage them that also include this feature, such as the parable of the vineyard, where the keepers kill the master’s son, and then the master comes and kills them all. And he accuses them of killing all the other prophets too! And of course you end up having to change the whole narrative to sustain this, too - the charges of blasphemy, the betrayal of Judas, etc. The argument that the passages you cite are insertions just makes no sense, they are totally in keeping with all the rest. If you want to say it’s all inspired anti-semitism, fair enough and there’s probably some truth to it, but there’s no reason to think that those passages alone are fake. It’s probably also worth keeping in mind that the people who wrote this were probably also all Jewish.
- throw__away7391 5y ago
  > they actually attempt to stone him at multiple points Right, so they are also alleged to have killed others, and suddenly for Jesus it is claimed that they "don't have the authority" and need Pilate to do it. Written by a child.

MomoXenosaga 5y ago

You can only argue religion with atheists. Everyone else is a stakeholder. Something someone told me at university and it has been remarkably true.

tomohawk 5y ago
Atheism is itself a religion, and athiests are definitely stakeholders. Atheists have a definite belief about God - He does not exist. Atheists have a definite belief about the afterlife - it does not exist. These are metaphysical beliefs that cannot be proven by science or any other methods we know of. They must be taken on faith. Historically, when the communist atheists took over countries like Russia, they would hold debates with indigenous religious leaders to try to prove the superiority of their beliefs.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > Atheism is itself a religion, and athiests are definitely stakeholders. Only if not having anything to drink is a type of soda.
  - tomohawk 5y ago
    Atheism is not "nothing". There are definite metaphysical beliefs that make up Atheism. Atheism is not the empty set. An Atheist doesn't say "I believe in nothing".
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      This is one of those topics that practically defines "moot". But anyway, as a non-atheist, you don't get to say what atheists think. (Also, not capitalized.)
- city41 5y ago
  Atheism is a spectrum. For example, agnostic atheists do not "definitely believe" there is no god. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

dragonwriter 5y ago

> I gather that serious historians consider the mystical writings of Paul as primary, followed much later by realization of the need to invent a figure of Jesus to have been heard to dictate doctrine; and then to invent apostles to have witnessed it; and finally invent a timeline of dictation events. Someone, somewhere may believe that, but it certainly isn't a shared belief of most serious historians (much less something most, or any, serious historians would consider strongly supported by historical evidence.) About the only part of that on which there is broad consensus is that, of the writings incorporated into the scripture, the Pauline corpus is most likely the earliest to have been written in its current form.