Did Paul create Jesus?

[excreationist]

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?

Maybe mythicists like Richard Carrier would say that Jesus was a mythical dying and rising god that some believers hallucinated (including Paul himself).

 

[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?

Maybe mythicists like Richard Carrier would say that Jesus was a mythical dying and rising god that some believers hallucinated (including Paul himself).

Apparently there was not a shortage of preachers and miracle workers getting around at the time, so it's not a stretch to assume that one of them stood out.

 

[atrib]

Apparently there was not a shortage of preachers and miracle workers getting around at the time, so it's not a stretch to assume that one of them stood out.

Please don't say things like that. You're just going to trigger Lumpy into posting a couple of dozen more walls of text that say nothing.

 

[TomC]

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 don't see conclusive evidence that Paul existed. I see conclusive evidence that the bottle of grapefruit juice in my hand exists, Paul not so much.

I'm confident he did exist as a individual. It's far and away the most plausible explanation for what we do have solid evidence about. But it's possible that Paul was an invention.

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.

Again, this is all a matter of plausibility. The most plausible explanation, to me, is that an unusually charismatic individual named Jesus inspired something that grew. Paul discovered it for himself, and flipped from persecutor to proselytizer. With the fervor of a convert Paul started spreading the Good News. He spread it far enough to prevent it from destruction by the Romans. He probably elaborated on it and helped it start becoming the epic myth it eventually became.

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

I don't claim to know much of any of this. I'm describing what I find most plausible and why. I know that the Romans bulldozed Jesus's world within a few decades of His life. Whatever authentic information concerning His life existed probably only as an oral tradition.

Also important is that Jesus was a convicted criminal, according to the Romans. Convicted of treason against Rome. Neither He nor anyone who claimed to revere Him could ever talk openly about the historical Jesus. Or they might wind up on a cross too. That would make it both easy and needful to start creating a legend around Him.

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

I'm not ruling out much of anything.
I also doubt that the Jesus Movement and Christianity had much in common. A generation or two of inter-cultural "whisper telephone" turned the Jesus Movement into Christianity. I don't think Jesus would recognize, much less own, the Greco-Roman epic myth Christianity revolved around.
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

If it's true that Saul was persecuting Christians before his conversion...

The story of Saul persecuting Christians seems unlikely to me to be historical. The Romans would probably not have allowed a gang of armed Jewish thugs to run around Judea attacking people.

...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?

Not necessarily. Even if the story of Saul attacking Christians prior to his conversion is historical, then all that proves is that Saul was not the first Christian. Yes, somebody else would have founded Christianity, but we don't know who.

 

[TomC]

The story of Saul persecuting Christians seems unlikely to me to be historical. The Romans would probably not have allowed a gang of armed Jewish thugs to run around Judea attacking people.

This makes no sense. Of course the Romans didn't allow gangs of armed Jewish thugs to run around Judea attacking people. It happened a lot and when the Romans caught them they crucified them in the most literal sense.

That's why I think that Jesus was more like Osama bin Laden than a peacenik.
But the Apostles couldn't tell Paul that, so they only told Paul about the ethical teachings. Because he was a known persecutor of people like the historical Jesus.
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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 don't see conclusive evidence that Paul existed. I see conclusive evidence that the bottle of grapefruit juice in my hand exists, Paul not so much.

I presume you have complete confidence I exist, yet you've never held me in your hand. (Not that you would want to.) Why do you know I exist? Because you are reading what I've written. You know that my posts need a real person to write them. We have the same evidence for Paul: his written letters.

I'm confident he did exist as a individual. It's far and away the most plausible explanation for what we do have solid evidence about. But it's possible that Paul was an invention.

I think that the Saul/Paul we read about in Acts is an invention. His story there seems unlikely to be true. So to sum up, the Paul who wrote Romans was a real guy, but the Paul of Acts is not likely to be historical.

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.

Again, this is all a matter of plausibility. The most plausible explanation, to me, is that an unusually charismatic individual named Jesus inspired something that grew. Paul discovered it for himself, and flipped from persecutor to proselytizer. With the fervor of a convert Paul started spreading the Good News. He spread it far enough to prevent it from destruction by the Romans. He probably elaborated on it and helped it start becoming the epic myth it eventually became.

That's very possible, but why add the extra assumption that Jesus existed when Paul is quite adequate to be the man who initiated Christianity?

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

I know that the Romans bulldozed Jesus's world within a few decades of His life. Whatever authentic information concerning His life existed probably only as an oral tradition.

I'm not familiar with that hypothesis. I see no reason why the Romans would deliberately destroy written evidence for Jesus. The Romans wanted to put down the Jewish rebellion in 70 CE. Doing so wouldn't require them to wipe out religious documents.

Also important is that Jesus was a convicted criminal, according to the Romans.

It was according to the Christians who wrote the Gospels, not the Romans. We have no evidence from the Romans that they convicted Jesus as a criminal.

Convicted of treason against Rome. Neither He nor anyone who claimed to revere Him could ever talk openly about the historical Jesus. Or they might wind up on a cross too. That would make it both easy and needful to start creating a legend around Him.

Merely speaking of Jesus probably wouldn't have stirred up the Romans. They would be unlikely to know whom you're talking about.

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

I'm not ruling out much of anything.
I also doubt that the Jesus Movement and Christianity had much in common. A generation or two of inter-cultural "whisper telephone" turned the Jesus Movement into Christianity. I don't think Jesus would recognize, much less own, the Greco-Roman epic myth Christianity revolved around.

If Jesus existed, then he would have been as Hellenized as as much as most Jews of his day. He is presented that way in the Gospels.

 

[TomC]

I presume you have complete confidence I exist, yet you've never held me in your hand.

You are wrong.

I'm quite confident that you exist, but not as confident that you exist as some other things in my life, like the juice bottle I was drinking from earlier.
All you are, in an absolute sense, is little black marks on a phone. Rather like all Paul is, to me, is the character in a few ancient stories. More plausible than Resurrected Jesus, less plausible than Alexander the Great.

None of my opinions here are expressed with complete confidence. Some more than others. I've got better evidence for AtG than I have for you.
Tom

 

[TomC]

I think that the Saul/Paul we read about in Acts is an invention. His story there seems unlikely to be true. So to sum up, the Paul who wrote Romans was a real guy, but the Paul of Acts is not likely to be historical.

This is the kind of statement that makes the conversation difficult to follow.

I'm also quite confident that Acts includes some embroidered legend. But I think that Paul existed and wrote(more or less) his Epistles. So I don't understand what you mean by :
"Paul who wrote Romans was a real guy, but the Paul of Acts is not likely to be historical.".
Different people? Acts wasn't entirely accurate? Paul didn't exist, somebody else wrote the Epistles and attributed them to Paul? Any of those, and other possibilities, could be true. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

What I see as most plausible I described upthread.
Tom

 

[DBT]

Apparently there was not a shortage of preachers and miracle workers getting around at the time, so it's not a stretch to assume that one of them stood out.

Please don't say things like that. You're just going to trigger Lumpy into posting a couple of dozen more walls of text that say nothing.

Yeah, that could be a problem, especially when I didn't mean actual miracles.

 

[bilby]

Why do you know I exist? Because you are reading what I've written. You know that my posts need a real person to write them. We have the same evidence for Paul: his written letters.

By the same reasoning, we know that Jane Eyre was a real person, as we have her letters to Rochester.

 

[excreationist]

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.

You seem to be considering the Christ myth theory. The two main proponents are Robert Price and Richard Carrier. In post #19 I had videos of the atheist Bart Ehrman debating both of those people. So that's a chance for you to see some of the best arguments on both sides - and see if you still think mythicism is a good theory.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

I also think there was a real Yehoshua bar Yosef who had legends attached to him.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[TomC]

I'm not familiar with that hypothesis. I see no reason why the Romans would deliberately destroy written evidence for Jesus. The Romans wanted to put down the Jewish rebellion in 70 CE. Doing so wouldn't require them to wipe out religious documents.

I don't see it as an hypothesis so much as an observation. I'm comparing what is well known about the situation in Judea with the NT story as told and looking for the most plausible explanation.

My guess is that the early judean church was a small group inspired by Jesus. It was unimportant in the big picture. Probably no written records at all. It wasn't targeted specifically by the Romans, it wasn't that important. It may well have simply died out on it's own, because the failed messiah it was inspired by failed to return or show any signs of Messiahood. It may have petered out along with the people who actually knew Jesus when He was alive. Who knows?

Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

All you are, in an absolute sense, is little black marks on a phone.

Is it correct to conclude that you're not serious here?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I think that the Saul/Paul we read about in Acts is an invention. His story there seems unlikely to be true. So to sum up, the Paul who wrote Romans was a real guy, but the Paul of Acts is not likely to be historical.

This is the kind of statement that makes the conversation difficult to follow.

I'm also quite confident that Acts includes some embroidered legend. But I think that Paul existed and wrote(more or less) his Epistles.

I think that's true.

So I don't understand what you mean by :
"Paul who wrote Romans was a real guy, but the Paul of Acts is not likely to be historical.".
Different people?

Yes. Note that Paul wrote his epistles, of course, but Acts was written by somebody else. The story of Paul in Acts is probably not the story of the "real" Paul.

Acts wasn't entirely accurate?

Yes. It's largely a work of fiction created by the early church to portray Paul as an amazing convert who heroically preached the Gospel under difficult circumstances. Paul in Acts is in a sense following in the footsteps of the Gospel Jesus. So Acts "connects the dots" between Paul preaching a celestial Christ and a Paul affected by a historical Christ.

Paul didn't exist, somebody else wrote the Epistles and attributed them to Paul?

Paul wrote some of those epistles while the others are seen to be forgeries.

Any of those, and other possibilities, could be true. I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

I don't know where the confusion lies.

 

[TomC]

All you are, in an absolute sense, is little black marks on a phone.

Is it correct to conclude that you're not serious here?

No, I meant it.
I was trying to draw a contrast between "completely confident" and "quite confident". That's what that post was about.
You're existence, as an individual, is not as concrete as many of the other things and people around me. In the absolute sense, to me you're little black marks on a screen.
Tom

 

[TomC]

I don't know where the confusion lies.

You described Paul as both "a real guy" and "not likely to be historical". I think I understand, but it's confusing. You could start by explaining why you think that.

I once heard a theory proposed by some scholar. Christianity was concocted entirely after the Jewish Diaspora(~100ce). Somebody concocted a fake Greek epic myth and set it in Judea. The setting was Judea because Judea was exotic and defunct, so nobody could check the accuracy of anything more than Pilate, Nazareth, the Temple, stuff like that. All the important characters were made up whole cloth.
Kinda like Joseph Smith and Angel Moroni.
Neither I nor anyone else can positively disprove that hypothesis. To me, that would be a mythical Jesus.

Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Why do you know I exist? Because you are reading what I've written. You know that my posts need a real person to write them. We have the same evidence for Paul: his written letters.

By the same reasoning, we know that Jane Eyre was a real person, as we have her letters to Rochester.

That's not the same reasoning. Jane Eyre's letters to Rochester are imaginary and only appear in a work of fiction. Paul's letters, by contrast, are quite real. They were written by a real person, of course. Paul.

 

[bilby]

Why do you know I exist? Because you are reading what I've written. You know that my posts need a real person to write them. We have the same evidence for Paul: his written letters.

By the same reasoning, we know that Jane Eyre was a real person, as we have her letters to Rochester.

That's not the same reasoning. Jane Eyre's letters to Rochester are imaginary and only appear in a work of fiction. Paul's letters, by contrast, are quite real. They were written by a real person, of course. Paul.

10 How do you know that Paul was a real person?

20 We have his letters.

30 How do you know that those letters aren't fiction?

40 Paul was a real person.

50 GOTO 10