Over at The Secular Frontier John MacDonald singled me out for my journey from someone who previously believed Jesus was the Son of God, to thinking he was a failed apocalyptic prophet, to taking an agnostic stance on the question, ending up as a Jesus mythicist. At the international conference on the historical Jesus, put on by GCRR, I had summed up my recent journey, saying: I have resisted taking a stand on Jesus Mythicism, arguing instead that, “At best Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet.” Halfway position. Not so sanguine now. I have since changed my mind. For a few years I embraced agnosticism. I have now established myself enough to take a stand on this issue. At what point can we say all traces of any real Jesus are gone, and that they’re gone because he never existed as a real person in the first place? We have to work with what we have, not what we hope will be discovered. What we can conclude is that whatever traces of a human being we might find behind the ancient tales of Jesus, at best they are indistinguishable from him not existing at all. Any real Jesus is therefore an unnecessary figure we can do without. That’s good enough when it comes to god and science. It’s good enough here. See: SOURCE. Many atheists are changing their minds on the historical nature of Jesus, but MacDonald singled me out even though I have never argued for the mythicist viewpoint. I guess he wanted my attention. Okay, hi John! I hope 2023 is a good year for you! That being said, since I’ve never argued on behalf of my current viewpoint, I’m not going to argue with MacDonald either. Nonetheless, I want to refer everyone to the influence of the authors in my co-edited book with Robert M. Price, Varieties of Jesus Mythicism.
In addition to those authors there’s the influence of Richard Carrier. In the first place he convincingly shows the book of Acts is fiction. In the New Testament that book is supposed to connect readers of Paul and the gospels to the 1st century historical church, and it fails, miserably. His talk in 2015 was significant for me. Carrier also wrote a significant recent essay, How We Can Know 1 Clement Was Actually Written in the 60s AD, which leads readers to question what we know about early church history itself, apart from the book of Acts. That essay puts all traditional timelines up for questioning and debate. So readers can understand my current view, especially if you read Bart Willruth’s 2 Part essay, Reassessing Paul’s Timeline. If Willruth’s essay was available before we published our Jesus Mythicism anthology, I would’ve included it. Willruth says: Robert Price, in his book “The Amazing Colossal Apostle” suggests that Paul’s letters date from the late first century CE to the second century CE. While we differ on where to assign a re-dating of Paul, we both recognize that there is no reason to hold to traditional dating. In his post, “How do we know the Apostle Paul Wrote His Epistles in the 50’s AD“, Richard Carrier acknowledges that “I don’t consider this matter as settled as mainstream scholars do. Paul’s Epistles do fit remarkably well in the 50s B.C.” Willruth argues “we have enough reason to point to Paul’s probable timeline of letters in the 40’s -30’s BCE.” Then says, “If this chronology is correct, Paul would never have heard of Jesus of Nazareth and couldn’t have been writing to Christians as we would recognize them.” He concludes:
Debunking Christianity
About Author
