3 ms·
Richard Carrier is about the least disinterested individual one could cite on the subject of Jesus mythicism. His “celestial Jesus” view requires an ahistorical
by anjbe 4y 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 4y agoI have no opinion on Richard Carriers's views. My comment was his opinion on Tim O'Neill's views since that was relevant.
- anjbe 4y agoIn 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 4y agoWe 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.