Did Paul create Jesus?

[Unknown Soldier]

The earliest evidence we have for Christianity is Paul's letters which have been dated to about 50 CE. Unlike the Gospel writers, Paul says almost nothing about a Jesus living on earth. Paul's Jesus only speaks in visions and revelations. Could it be that Paul created a celestial Jesus only to have the Gospel writers historicize Jesus decades later? Obviously, if Jesus never existed as a real man, then somebody else had to set the wheels of Christianity in motion. Paul, I submit, is the most likely candidate as the creator of Christ and Christianity.

 

[excreationist]

I think Jesus was based on a real person.

1 Corinthians 15:3b-8

Christ died for our sins, just as Scripture said he would. 4 He was buried. He was raised from the dead on the third day, just as Scripture said he would be. 5 He appeared to Peter. Then he appeared to the 12 apostles. 6 After that, he appeared to more than 500 brothers and sisters at the same time. Most of them are still living. But some have died. 7 He appeared to James. Then he appeared to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, he also appeared to me. I was like someone who wasn’t born at the right time.

Some atheists say the appearance to the 500 involved a mass hallucination. I think it was a case of mistaken identity - after all a similar thing happened involving thousands of people:

V: Jesus in Nairobi, Kenya, 1988

________________________________________________________________________ Compare the photos of Jesus and me to see the resemblance! My previous self, Jesus, was briefly sent to Earth in 1988 &#8211…

stigdragholm.wordpress.com

About 6,000 worshippers at Muslim Village, Kawangware, Nairobi, believe they saw Jesus Christ, in broad daylight last week. It may be hard to believe, but nothing will move them, because “Jesus” addressed them and assured them of a come-back, very soon.

Note that it doesn't say where the 500 people were or when it happened.
I also think most/all of the sightings of Jesus after his death were mistaken identity.
e.g. Mark 6:14-16 Herod thinks that Jesus is John the Baptist raised from the dead. While some believe Jesus is Elijah raised from the dead. And people can have trouble recognising Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead (and someone thought he was a gardener).

 

[excreationist]

About a "mass hallucination" - this seems to be claimed by the atheist Richard Carrier:

Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once! • Richard Carrier Blogs

Christian apologists will often throw a tantrum and kick up hay over the notion of “mass hallucination.” That’s impossible! Never documented! Absurd on its face! And they’ll especially bring up “the more than five hundred brethren” Paul says the resurrected Jesus “appeared” to (1 Corinthians...

www.richardcarrier.info

On the topic of a celestial Jesus:

Christ myth theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This says the living proponents are Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier..... though there are over a dozen early and later proponents....

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I think Jesus was based on a real person.

Would you say that Paul's epistles are good evidence for a historical Jesus? His Jesus looks darned unreal to me, and yet Paul is the only New Testament writer whom we can identify. Paul's letters are also decades earlier than the Gospels, and they constitute the oldest evidence we have for Christianity. Somebody needed to create Christianity, and the best evidence for that creator is that it was Paul.

1 Corinthians 15:3b-8

Christ died for our sins, just as Scripture said he would. 4 He was buried. He was raised from the dead on the third day, just as Scripture said he would be. 5 He appeared to Peter. Then he appeared to the 12 apostles. 6 After that, he appeared to more than 500 brothers and sisters at the same time. Most of them are still living. But some have died. 7 He appeared to James. Then he appeared to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, he also appeared to me. I was like someone who wasn’t born at the right time.

Some atheists say the appearance to the 500 involved a mass hallucination. I think it was a case of mistaken identity - after all a similar thing happened involving thousands of people:

V: Jesus in Nairobi, Kenya, 1988

________________________________________________________________________ Compare the photos of Jesus and me to see the resemblance! My previous self, Jesus, was briefly sent to Earth in 1988 &#8211…

stigdragholm.wordpress.com

About 6,000 worshippers at Muslim Village, Kawangware, Nairobi, believe they saw Jesus Christ, in broad daylight last week. It may be hard to believe, but nothing will move them, because “Jesus” addressed them and assured them of a come-back, very soon.

Note that it doesn't say where the 500 people were or when it happened.
I also think most/all of the sightings of Jesus after his death were mistaken identity.
e.g. Mark 6:14-16 Herod thinks that Jesus is John the Baptist raised from the dead. While some believe Jesus is Elijah raised from the dead. And people can have trouble recognising Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead (and someone thought he was a gardener).

What does any of this have to do with Paul creating Christianity?

 

[atrib]

Some atheists say the appearance to the 500 involved a mass hallucination. I think it was a case of mistaken identity

Or the story is a fabrication. While we cannot rule out the mass hallucination and mistaken identity hypothesis, assuming that the story is a work of fiction is considerably simpler, and thus more probable.

 

[TomC]

What does any of this have to do with Paul creating Christianity?

I don't think Paul created Christianity, per se. I think he didn't know much about historical Jesus. He transplanted the best of the "Jesus Movement" outside of Judea. The communitarian ethics and culture, which were popular.(sorta)

Then the Greco-Roman culture finished destroying the world Jesus lived in. Within a few decades, even the Temple was destroyed. Nearly all traces of historical Jesus died along with Judea.

What survived and thrived was the Greco-Roman version of the Jesus Legend. Unsurprisingly, it developed into a Greek style epic myth. The setting of Judea gave it exotic flavor, but it's still more like a Greek myth than Jewish myth. That worked much better in the Greco-Roman world than Jewish asceticism, like the real Jesus. "Water into wine! Yay!"... Circumcision? What the fuck?"

Demigod and Trinitarian Pantheon, sure. Failed Jewish Messiah, who cares? Jewish guy dodges Pilates death sentence, Smart. We'll call it Resurrected. Then go to His party.

Yeah. Yeah. I remember His Ascension to Heaven like it was yesterday...

Tom

ETA ~In a very real sense I think Paul(and people like him) created Christianity as we know it. But not the Jesus Movement that started the whole thing.~

 

[excreationist]

Some atheists say the appearance to the 500 involved a mass hallucination. I think it was a case of mistaken identity

Or the story is a fabrication. While we cannot rule out the mass hallucination and mistaken identity hypothesis, assuming that the story is a work of fiction is considerably simpler, and thus more probable.

Even though Richard Carrier thinks Jesus was a myth he seems to think the 500 seems to be a real event...
Also the idea that Jesus is just a myth might be simpler too but the Wikipedia article says that theory has two notable living proponents...

Christ myth theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[excreationist]

I think Jesus was based on a real person.

Would you say that Paul's epistles are good evidence for a historical Jesus? His Jesus looks darned unreal to me, and yet Paul is the only New Testament writer whom we can identify. Paul's letters are also decades earlier than the Gospels, and they constitute the oldest evidence we have for Christianity. Somebody needed to create Christianity, and the best evidence for that creator is that it was Paul.

So you're saying that Jesus was not based on a real person? What is he based on? Some kind of dying and rising god?

1 Corinthians 15:3b-8

Christ died for our sins, just as Scripture said he would. 4 He was buried. He was raised from the dead on the third day, just as Scripture said he would be. 5 He appeared to Peter. Then he appeared to the 12 apostles. 6 After that, he appeared to more than 500 brothers and sisters at the same time. Most of them are still living. But some have died. 7 He appeared to James. Then he appeared to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, he also appeared to me. I was like someone who wasn’t born at the right time.

Some atheists say the appearance to the 500 involved a mass hallucination. I think it was a case of mistaken identity - after all a similar thing happened involving thousands of people:

V: Jesus in Nairobi, Kenya, 1988

________________________________________________________________________ Compare the photos of Jesus and me to see the resemblance! My previous self, Jesus, was briefly sent to Earth in 1988 &#8211…

stigdragholm.wordpress.com

About 6,000 worshippers at Muslim Village, Kawangware, Nairobi, believe they saw Jesus Christ, in broad daylight last week. It may be hard to believe, but nothing will move them, because “Jesus” addressed them and assured them of a come-back, very soon.

Note that it doesn't say where the 500 people were or when it happened.
I also think most/all of the sightings of Jesus after his death were mistaken identity.
e.g. Mark 6:14-16 Herod thinks that Jesus is John the Baptist raised from the dead. While some believe Jesus is Elijah raised from the dead. And people can have trouble recognising Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead (and someone thought he was a gardener).

What does any of this have to do with Paul creating Christianity?

The 1 Corinthians 15 passage seems to say Jesus was either a real person or he was a hallucination.... and it involves Paul being the first to talk about that.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I think Jesus was based on a real person.

Would you say that Paul's epistles are good evidence for a historical Jesus? His Jesus looks darned unreal to me, and yet Paul is the only New Testament writer whom we can identify. Paul's letters are also decades earlier than the Gospels, and they constitute the oldest evidence we have for Christianity. Somebody needed to create Christianity, and the best evidence for that creator is that it was Paul.

So you're saying that Jesus was not based on a real person? What is he based on? Some kind of dying and rising god?

Please answer my question, then I will answer yours.

1 Corinthians 15:3b-8

Christ died for our sins, just as Scripture said he would. 4 He was buried. He was raised from the dead on the third day, just as Scripture said he would be. 5 He appeared to Peter. Then he appeared to the 12 apostles. 6 After that, he appeared to more than 500 brothers and sisters at the same time. Most of them are still living. But some have died. 7 He appeared to James. Then he appeared to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, he also appeared to me. I was like someone who wasn’t born at the right time.

Some atheists say the appearance to the 500 involved a mass hallucination. I think it was a case of mistaken identity - after all a similar thing happened involving thousands of people:

V: Jesus in Nairobi, Kenya, 1988

________________________________________________________________________ Compare the photos of Jesus and me to see the resemblance! My previous self, Jesus, was briefly sent to Earth in 1988 &#8211…

stigdragholm.wordpress.com

About 6,000 worshippers at Muslim Village, Kawangware, Nairobi, believe they saw Jesus Christ, in broad daylight last week. It may be hard to believe, but nothing will move them, because “Jesus” addressed them and assured them of a come-back, very soon.

Note that it doesn't say where the 500 people were or when it happened.
I also think most/all of the sightings of Jesus after his death were mistaken identity.
e.g. Mark 6:14-16 Herod thinks that Jesus is John the Baptist raised from the dead. While some believe Jesus is Elijah raised from the dead. And people can have trouble recognising Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead (and someone thought he was a gardener).

What does any of this have to do with Paul creating Christianity?

The 1 Corinthians 15 passage seems to say Jesus was either a real person or he was a hallucination.... and it involves Paul being the first to talk about that.

I don't see anything in that passage that suggests that anybody was hallucinating.

 

[TomC]

Even though Richard Carrier thinks Jesus was a myth he seems to think the 500 seems to be a real event...
Also the idea that Jesus is just a myth might be simpler too but the Wikipedia article says that theory has two notable living proponents...

Here's something I can't help but notice.

You argue like a religionist. You commonly refer to the opinions of famous people as though they are more authoritative than others, even though they haven't any more evidence than anybody else.

That's something I've noticed about religious apologists. They tend to use arguments from authority. "An important human said..." seems to carry more weight than solid arguments from unimportant people. It's like the people who keep referring to Darwinism, despite modern people recognizing that Darwin was a primitive 19th century biologist and didn't understand modern science. Then talking about abiogenisis and superior races as though Darwin's primitive biology had anything to do with any of that thing.
Tom

 

[excreationist]

The 1 Corinthians 15 passage seems to say Jesus was either a real person or he was a hallucination.... and it involves Paul being the first to talk about that.

I don't see anything in that passage that suggests that anybody was hallucinating.

Well the main two people who promote the kind of celestial Jesus you're talking about are Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier and it seems you don't think Richard Carrier has good arguments regarding key writings of Paul and the 500.
BTW in verse 8 Paul says that Jesus appeared to him.... most people believe that involved a hallucination....

 

[excreationist]

Even though Richard Carrier thinks Jesus was a myth he seems to think the 500 seems to be a real event...
Also the idea that Jesus is just a myth might be simpler too but the Wikipedia article says that theory has two notable living proponents...

Here's something I can't help but notice.

You argue like a religionist. You commonly refer to the opinions of famous people as though they are more authoritative than others, even though they haven't any more evidence than anybody else.

That's something I've noticed about religious apologists. They tend to use arguments from authority. "An important human said..." seems to carry more weight than solid arguments from unimportant people. It's like the people who keep referring to Darwinism, despite modern people recognizing that Darwin was a primitive 19th century biologist and didn't understand modern science. Then talking about abiogenisis and superior races as though Darwin's primitive biology had anything to do with any of that thing.
Tom

I'm saying that those two people aren't particularly authoritative. I mean Wikipedia is saying there are TWO notable living proponents (though there are over a dozen early and later proponents). I mean even YEC has way more notable supporters... (maybe some poor reasoning there but my point is I'm not saying they're authoritative)

 

[TomC]

I'm saying that those two people aren't authoritative. I mean Wikipedia is saying there are TWO living proponents (though there are over a dozen early and later proponents). I mean even YEC has way more notable supporters..

This entire post is yet more about human authority.

If you've got opinions post them. Back them up. Discuss them.

I will, I definitely have opinions. You can as well. Just do it.
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

What does any of this have to do with Paul creating Christianity?

I don't think Paul created Christianity, per se.

If Paul didn't create Christianity, then there could have been a Jesus who created Christianity. Paul is much more likely the creator, though, because we have conclusive evidence that Paul existed but no such evidence for Jesus.

I think he didn't know much about historical Jesus.

That's correct, but there are some passages in Paul's epistles where he seems to suggest that Jesus did spend some time as a real man on earth. The aforementioned 1 Corinthians 15, for example.

Then the Greco-Roman culture finished destroying the world Jesus lived in. Within a few decades, even the Temple was destroyed. Nearly all traces of historical Jesus died along with Judea.

If all that evidence for Jesus was destroyed by the Romans, then how do you know it ever existed?

What survived and thrived was the Greco-Roman version of the Jesus Legend. Unsurprisingly, it developed into a Greek style epic myth. The setting of Judea gave it exotic flavor, but it's still more like a Greek myth than Jewish myth. That worked much better in the Greco-Roman world than Jewish asceticism, like the real Jesus.

There's no doubt that the New Testament is Hellenized. John 1, for existence, swipes the logos myth from the Greeks. If the New Testament writers were borrowing pagan myths left and right, then it seems odd that those same documents are used as a basis for a historical Jesus. Do those propagandists suddenly become credible when they spoke of a real Jesus?

ETA ~In a very real sense I think Paul(and people like him) created Christianity as we know it. But not the Jesus Movement that started the whole thing.~

Who started the "Jesus movement" and why rule out Paul as its inventor?

 

[excreationist]

I'm saying that those two people aren't authoritative. I mean Wikipedia is saying there are TWO living proponents (though there are over a dozen early and later proponents). I mean even YEC has way more notable supporters..

This entire post is yet more about human authority.

If you've got opinions post them. Back them up. Discuss them.

I will, I definitely have opinions. You can as well. Just do it.
Tom

I'm saying that Christ myth theory doesn't make a good case. I have already shared the opinions I wanted to share (see my first post). I'm not interested in trying to argue why Christ myth theory has problems.
The Wikipedia article also mentions many of the flaws with the theory:

Christ myth theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

BTW when I looked at the Wikipedia article more carefully it seems like there are quite a few more living proponents than two.... (which goes against my side of the argument)

 

[atrib]

Some atheists say the appearance to the 500 involved a mass hallucination. I think it was a case of mistaken identity

Or the story is a fabrication. While we cannot rule out the mass hallucination and mistaken identity hypothesis, assuming that the story is a work of fiction is considerably simpler, and thus more probable.

Even though Richard Carrier thinks Jesus was a myth he seems to think the 500 seems to be a real event...

Why would Carrier believe a story about 500 people meeting Jesus after his alleged resurrection when he doesn't believe that Jesus existed? Can you explain how this makes any sense to you?

Also the idea that Jesus is just a myth might be simpler too but the Wikipedia article says that theory has two notable living proponents...

Christ myth theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So what? You are once again making an argument from authority, and such arguments are unreliable. Also, I am not claiming that the entire Jesus mythology is fictional, just that the story of the 500 people meeting a dead and risen person is likely a fabrication. Do you disagree? Do you have any original thoughts on the matter?

 

[excreationist]

Some atheists say the appearance to the 500 involved a mass hallucination. I think it was a case of mistaken identity

Or the story is a fabrication. While we cannot rule out the mass hallucination and mistaken identity hypothesis, assuming that the story is a work of fiction is considerably simpler, and thus more probable.

Even though Richard Carrier thinks Jesus was a myth he seems to think the 500 seems to be a real event...

Why would Carrier believe a story about 500 people meeting Jesus after his alleged resurrection when he doesn't believe that Jesus existed? Can you explain how this makes any sense to you?

He believes in a celestial Jesus that people originally saw in visions.

Also the idea that Jesus is just a myth might be simpler too but the Wikipedia article says that theory has two notable living proponents...

Christ myth theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So what? You are once again making an argument from authority, and such arguments are unreliable.

I'm talking about a poor case of authority. I'm saying only two notable living proponents is disappointing compared to how many people including atheists don't think Jesus was a complete myth.

Also, I am not claiming that the entire Jesus mythology is fictional, just that the story of the 500 people meeting a dead and risen person is likely a fabrication. Do you disagree? Do you have any original thoughts on the matter?

What about the case of the 6000 I mentioned? (which as far as I know is an original thought when applied to Jesus - same with my theory about the mistaken identities in the gospels - without Jesus having an identical twin) Do you have a single example of a similar situation being a fabrication? In my example it actually happened rather than it being hypothetical.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That's something I've noticed about religious apologists. They tend to use arguments from authority. "An important human said..." seems to carry more weight than solid arguments from unimportant people.

Those who argue for a historical Jesus use appeals to majority and authority. It very often starts out: "The vast, overwhelming consensus of Jesus experts have no doubt at all that Jesus was a historical person." This bluster is met with cheers from Christians regardless of what Jesus is actually being referred to or what that consensus really has to back up its claim. This enthusiasm on the part of Christians for the expert majority is conspicuously absent when those experts are evolutionary biologists.

When heaven is on the line, jump at whatever you think will get you there.

 

[excreationist]

That's something I've noticed about religious apologists. They tend to use arguments from authority. "An important human said..." seems to carry more weight than solid arguments from unimportant people.

Those who argue for a historical Jesus use appeals to majority and authority. It very often starts out: "The vast, overwhelming consensus of Jesus experts have no doubt at all that Jesus was a historical person."

There's Bart Ehrman who is apparently an atheist....

Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here he debates the mythicist Robert Price:

And here he debates Richard Carrier:

 

[DBT]

If it's true that Saul was persecuting Christians before his conversion...doesn't this suggests that there was a charismatic Rabbi/miracle worker called Yesuah Ben Joseph upon whom the myth had already begun to be built?