3 ms·

> 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: * ht

> 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.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        We have only O'Neill's word that Carrier's view are "considered far out". Probably most peers just don't really care whether there was ever a walking, talking Jesus. One thing literally everybody agrees on is that all the historically significant development of Christianity happened after there was certainly no Jesus walking around expressing opinions as to how it should go. There is not a hint of scholarship around whether anything He supposedly said was anything He did say, vs. being made up from whole cloth by Paul and his cohort, long after CE 37. Literally everybody agrees that the overwhelming majority of writings promoted as from that period are total fabrications, and that most of what might have been written then has been corrupted beyond all repair.
ncmncm 5y ago
I have read a fair bit of Tim O'Neill's site now, and find him persuasive.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Having checked some of his references, I now do not. Rewriting Josephus to support his claim is very, very sketchy.

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.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      We have only O'Neill's word that Carrier's view are "considered far out". Probably most peers just don't really care whether there was ever a walking, talking Jesus. One thing literally everybody agrees on is that all the historically significant development of Christianity happened after there was certainly no Jesus walking around expressing opinions as to how it should go. There is not a hint of scholarship around whether anything He supposedly said was anything He did say, vs. being made up from whole cloth by Paul and his cohort, long after CE 37. Literally everybody agrees that the overwhelming majority of writings promoted as from that period are total fabrications, and that most of what might have been written then has been corrupted beyond all repair.

ncmncm 5y ago

I have read a fair bit of Tim O'Neill's site now, and find him persuasive.

ncmncm 5y ago
Having checked some of his references, I now do not. Rewriting Josephus to support his claim is very, very sketchy.