Did Paul create Jesus?

[Unknown Soldier]

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

This is a strawman argument. I never said that Paul's letters "aren't fiction," whatever that means. This is what I'm actually arguing:

We have some letters included in the canon of the New Testament. One of those letters is Romans. Scholars have determined that Romans was written by Paul of Tarsus because among other things he identifies himself as the writer in 1:1. Therefore, Paul of Tarsus in all probability existed because somebody, who says he is Paul, must have written Romans--letters don't come about any other way.

There is no circle there.

You don't seem to be aware that some of the strongest historical evidence we can have for a real person is something that that person wrote in which the writer identifies himself. We have that evidence for Paul.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

In the absolute sense, to me you're little black marks on a screen.

Sheesh--I never cease to be amazed at what I read in these forums. You sincerely don't understand that those "little black marks on a screen" need to be created by a real person.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

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 said that the Paul in the Acts of the Apostles is not likely historical. The letter-writing Paul, on the other hand, must have existed.

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.

OK. What's your point? Does that hypothesis have something to do with Paul?

 

[bilby]

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

This is a strawman argument. I never said that Paul's letters "aren't fiction," whatever that means. This is what I'm actually arguing:

We have some letters included in the canon of the New Testament. One of those letters is Romans. Scholars have determined that Romans was written by Paul of Tarsus because among other things he identifies himself as the writer in 1:1. Therefore, Paul of Tarsus in all probability existed because somebody, who says he is Paul, must have written Romans--letters don't come about any other way.

There is no circle there.

You don't seem to be aware that some of the strongest historical evidence we can have for a real person is something that that person wrote in which the writer identifies himself. We have that evidence for Paul.

Nonsense.

Fiction can and does include anything that can be written. It's impossible to tell whether ANY piece of text is fictional or not, solely by examining text.

Your "evidence" for Paul is of the exact same kind and quality as the evidence that Jane Eyre was a real person.

To determine whether or not a piece of text is fiction, we must have non-textual evidence; Archaeological, physical, observational.

The existence of multiple texts that are plausibly independent and that don't contain known errors of fact can increase our confidence that a given text is nonfiction, but cannot possibly prove that hypothesis.

Absent incredible and astonishing advances in archaeology, any claim that any person described in the Bible, but of whom there is no physical nor independent historical evidence, is or is not a real person, is pure speculation and has no solid basis whatsoever.

We don't know. We DO know that we cannot know.

To claim even that Paul (or Jesus) might more plausibly have existed than not is to exceed the limits of the evidence.

"Nobody knows" is a perfectly good answer, and is demonstrably a better answer than any other in this case.

Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one, and they are full of shit.

 

[atrib]

In the absolute sense, to me you're little black marks on a screen.

Sheesh--I never cease to be amazed at what I read in these forums. You sincerely don't understand that those "little black marks on a screen" need to be created by a real person.

Or by a bot.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Nonsense.

Fiction can and does include anything that can be written. It's impossible to tell whether ANY piece of text is fictional or not, solely by examining text.

I don't know what this has to do with knowing that a writer of a document existed.

Your "evidence" for Paul is of the exact same kind and quality as the evidence that Jane Eyre was a real person.

I already rebutted this claim. It is incorrect.

To determine whether or not a piece of text is fiction, we must have non-textual evidence; Archaeological, physical, observational.

Again, this is irrelevant to knowing that a real person wrote a document. The issue isn't knowing that a written document is fact or fiction but knowing that its writer existed.

To claim even that Paul (or Jesus) might more plausibly have existed than not is to exceed the limits of the evidence.

No. We have Paul's epistles. Therefore, Paul existed. Yes, we might not know who exactly Paul was or what Paul did or what he was like, but we know there was an epistle-writing Paul.

"Nobody knows" is a perfectly good answer, and is demonstrably a better answer than any other in this case.

But we do know.

Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one, and they are full of shit.

Yes. I see that.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

In the absolute sense, to me you're little black marks on a screen.

Sheesh--I never cease to be amazed at what I read in these forums. You sincerely don't understand that those "little black marks on a screen" need to be created by a real person.

Or by a bot.

That's right. I'm a bot. Isn't AI amazing these days? And even AI in the first century--I'm the bot who wrote the epistles.

 

[bilby]

Nonsense.

Fiction can and does include anything that can be written. It's impossible to tell whether ANY piece of text is fictional or not, solely by examining text.

I don't know what this has to do with knowing that a writer of a document existed.

Your "evidence" for Paul is of the exact same kind and quality as the evidence that Jane Eyre was a real person.

I already rebutted this claim. It is incorrect.

To determine whether or not a piece of text is fiction, we must have non-textual evidence; Archaeological, physical, observational.

Again, this is irrelevant to knowing that a real person wrote a document. The issue isn't knowing that a written document is fact or fiction but knowing that its writer existed.

To claim even that Paul (or Jesus) might more plausibly have existed than not is to exceed the limits of the evidence.

No. We have Paul's epistles. Therefore, Paul existed. Yes, we might not know who exactly Paul was or what Paul did or what he was like, but we know there was an epistle-writing Paul.

"Nobody knows" is a perfectly good answer, and is demonstrably a better answer than any other in this case.

But we do know.

Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one, and they are full of shit.

Yes. I see that.

We know there was a letter writing Jane Eyre, for the exact same reasons you have given to know that there was a letter writing Paul.

But we also know that Jane Eyre was a fictional character; So it is quite possible that Paul too is a fictional character, and the existence of "his letters" is no more evidence of his existing than the existence of Miss Eyre's letters are evidence of her existence.

Your refusal to consider this obvious and simple argument doesn't constitute a rebuttal of it.

 

[TomC]

In the absolute sense, to me you're little black marks on a screen.

Sheesh--I never cease to be amazed at what I read in these forums. You sincerely don't understand that those "little black marks on a screen" need to be created by a real person.

Sheesh, you never seem to read the rest of those posts.
What I'm getting at is that there are possibilities that might not seem obvious but are true. You could be a sock puppet of another poster, a group of friends sharing an IIDB account, a bot...
I don't find any of those very plausible, I've never actually questioned your existence an individual poster.

The subject we're talking about here, the reality of ancient stories with a zillion possible reasons for people to be less than completely accurate, makes it nearly all a matter of opinions. Then there's the additional confusion caused by primitive literary standards and conventions. The ephemeral nature of the written word. Translation issues.
The list of reasons to remain in doubt is nearly endless.

Tom

 

[steve_bank]

I think Paul created his own version of Jesus. He took the Jewish out of Jesus.

Somewhere he references ohters teaching Jesus who he declared to be false. That would imply by the time of Paul peole were creating theri own versions, for fun and profit. Just like today.

If I were still driving and drove around Seattle I would see numerous small independent churches. Some in store fronts. Some meet in homes.

I was raid sed Catholic and went to Catholic schools. I wored at a place in the 80s with a Chrtian. He siad his church was hirng a minister. Knowing little about region then, it seemed odd to me compared to the RCC. His church adervtised for a minitser with certain qualifications.

Independent churches hire ministers who align with their views.

 

[TomC]

OK. What's your point? Does that hypothesis have something to do with Paul?

That Paul was one of the important characters made up in the second century.
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

We know there was a letter writing Jane Eyre, for the exact same reasons you have given to know that there was a letter writing Paul.

OK. Not only are you unable to tell the difference between imaginary letters and real letters, but you are either unable or unwilling to understand my explaining how they differ.

But we also know that Jane Eyre was a fictional character; So it is quite possible that Paul too is a fictional character, and the existence of "his letters" is no more evidence of his existing than the existence of Miss Eyre's letters are evidence of her existence.

Do we have Miss Eyre's letters? Hint: Quoting a passage in a work of fiction doesn't count as a letter from Miss Eyre.

Your refusal to consider this obvious and simple argument doesn't constitute a rebuttal of it.

I keep running into these crackpot ideas in online forums. It's sad. I think our educational system has failed to teach people how to think clearly and logically. Prior to your posts on this thread, I assumed that all but the most cognitively impaired individuals would readily realize that a letter signed "Paul" was written by a real person who called himself Paul. Now I see even that is not assured.

 

[Swammerdami]

Oh my. This thread just appeared and already has 50+ posts.
And I have already given the correct answer in earlier threads!
So I briefly reviewed only the thread's earliest posts.

While the Gospels are often dated to circa 90 AD or even later, in fact there were antecedent texts (including an early John, a hypothetical "Q" and possibly an early Mark) that were closer in time to Paul's writings.

Yet the Gospels never mention Paul, and Paul ignores almost all the stories in the Gospels. If these Jesuses were invented, they were TWO different inventions. (The Christ Mythicists at IIDB would agree with this, I think, perhaps positing three or more legendary Jesuses or inventions.)

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.

I'm not sure what the reddened clause means. Does 'historicize' here mean 'invent'? I agree that much — BUT NOT ALL — of the Gospels were invented but that the earliest (non-surviving) Gospels predate the Fall of Jerusalem and were roughly contemporaneous with Paul's writings. (Paul mentions Simon Peter and his presence in Rome IIRC.)

A key fact which leads almost inevitably to the realization that there was a single historic Jesus is that James is mentioned as the Christ's brother INDEPENDENTLY in THREE sources: (1) Paul in Galatians, (2) Josephus in Antiquities, and (3) "Mark" in the same-named Gospel ("Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and ... ")

Mythicists grasp at straws to deny this inevitability. Richard Carrier has a "solution" for James/Jesus which is absurdly laughable! Josephus' paragraph about James mentions a High Priest named Jesus: Carrier makes HIM the brother! Yet Galatians — where Paul meets James brother of the Christ — is generally agreed to be authentic Paul.

There are various other arguments for historicity, but just the James/Jesus brothership by itself reduces the mythicists to blither and babble.

I think Jesus was based on a real person.

Ding ding ding! Excreationist wins the thread.

...
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:

The original Gospel of Mark — probably the earliest Gospel excepting "Q" and perhaps John — barely mentions the Resurrection while that's all Paul wants to talk about! I think Jesusism (Christianity) developed very early and almost immediately split into two (or more) camps.

The post-crucifixion sightings may have been mistaken, lies or other confusion, or — see my recent post on Jaynes' bicameral brain — the result of hallucination or hypnosis.

 

[TomC]

all but the most cognitively impaired individuals would readily realize that a letter signed "Paul" was written by a real person who called himself Paul.

Despite your dismissing,
There's no hard evidence that Paul existed. I agree with you, he probably did. I find it most plausible that Paul was an adult convert. He was an educated, Hellenistic Jew, who traveled far more than most people of the day. He became a big proselytizer, spreading his version of the stuff around the known world. He was also very articulate, composing beautiful letters describing his version of Jesus's Message.
He is probably why Christianity came to exist and outlast the Jesus Movement. There are still other possibilities.

I find that the most plausible explanation for the existence of the enduring Greek myth set in first century Judea. What we now call Christianity, I sincerely doubt that Jesus would even recognize.
Tom

 

[Swammerdami]

I agree with Tom, but wish he'd explicitly stipulated that the Nazarene crucified under Pontius Pilate was a historical person.

And don't overlook that Christians were active in the City of Rome itself no later than about 60 AD, before Paul's arrival.

 

[bilby]

Do we have Miss Eyre's letters? Hint: Quoting a passage in a work of fiction doesn't count as a letter from Miss Eyre.

Do we have Paul's letters? Hint: Quoting a passage in a work of fiction doesn't count as a letter from Paul.

How do you know that Corinthians isn't fiction? It's "widely believed" not to be; It might well not be. But then, the same is true of the Loch Ness Monster.

We don't know enough to have a usable opinion; We are guessing, which is fun and all, but it's not knowledge, and it cannot reasonably be used as an axiom to derive further knowledge (eg about whether or not Jesus was a real person).

Note that I am not asserting that Paul (or Nessie) are or were not real; I am simply pointing out the unavoidable fact that nobody knows. Including you.

I keep running into these crackpot ideas in online forums. It's sad. I think our educational system has failed to teach people how to think clearly and logically.

Prior to your posts on this thread, I assumed that all but the most cognitively impaired individuals would readily realise that a letter signed "Paul" was not necessarily written by a real person who called himself Paul. Now I see even that is not assured.

Dear Unknown Soldier,

I hope this finds you well.

I am writing to warn you that people make shit up. It's one of the defining characteristics of humanity. How anyone could reach adulthood without having an innate distrust of stuff that is written down is beyond me.

Yours sincerely,

Paul.

Wow! Another real letter from Paul!!

Which of your criteria for being real does it contravene?

 

[DBT]

Aren't there several independent references to Paul and his mission? Clement, Ignatius, Eusebius, etc....?

 

[bilby]

Aren't there several independent references to Paul and his mission? Clement, Ignatius, Eusebius, etc....?

There are several independent references to Batman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Batman_creators

 

[TomC]

Aren't there several independent references to Paul and his mission? Clement, Ignatius, Eusebius, etc....?

The single biggest problem here is that whatever happened, it was almost 2000 years ago. Left no hard evidence.

There's no real way to know much about any of it. Sorting the agendas, motivations, and abilities is simply not possible. It's nearly impossible to do it in the modern world concerning living people. Trying to figure out what people in the ancient world were really getting up to, and why?
Can't be done

Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Sheesh, you never seem to read the rest of those posts.
What I'm getting at is that there are possibilities that might not seem obvious but are true. You could be a sock puppet of another poster, a group of friends sharing an IIDB account, a bot...

If I'm "a sock puppet of another poster, a group of friends sharing an IIDB account, a bot...," then I'm not just little black marks on your display. Although I don't normally argue over such strange issues, it appears that such muddled thinking can interfere with arguments about the topic of this thread.

I don't find any of those very plausible, I've never actually questioned your existence an individual poster.

That's good. If you really thought that I'm a bot, then we'd have a serious problem on our hands.

The subject we're talking about here, the reality of ancient stories with a zillion possible reasons for people to be less than completely accurate, makes it nearly all a matter of opinions. Then there's the additional confusion caused by primitive literary standards and conventions. The ephemeral nature of the written word. Translation issues.
The list of reasons to remain in doubt is nearly endless.

I've been reading Richard Carrier's latest work, Jesus from Outer Space: What the Earliest Christians Really Believed about Christ. And contrary to what you say, Carrier writes that we actually have some very good historical evidence for many people and events from antiquity. Jesus is not among them. Christian apologists would have us believe that the evidence we have for Jesus is as good or better than the evidence we have for figures like Socrates and Alexander the Great. We accept both of them as historical. So to be consistent, we must accept Jesus as historical too. It's not true because the evidence for Socrates and Alexander the Great is actually far better than for Jesus.

So getting back to the OP, we know Paul existed and was one of the first Christians. I think he may well have been the first member of the Christian sect. If so, then there was no Jesus, or at least there was no Jesus before Paul came along.