trendkill

He didn't exist in the sense that he wasn't the character described in the gospels, but it seems more plausible than not that there was a specific preacher who inspired the legends and who the religion was built around. People like deifying individuals, both literally and figuratively, and it would be odd if a religious movement that is so heavily focused on a single historical person didn't begin due to an obsession with any historical person in particular. Whether that guy counts as a historical Jesus is a matter of interpretation.

karlmarx

Not to mention that the claim that Paul was a "near contemporary of Jesus" is never made by Paul himself, but indirectly by the Gospels, which are unreliable historically, and which postdated Paul by a significant period.

Paul never even suggests that Jesus was a historical person, much less place him in a historical setting. Without the Gospels - which could well be 100% fiction - it's easy to conclude that Paul did NOT have a near contemporary in mind.

And why give any credence to the Gospels when they are so unreliable?

karlmarx

1. The Christ figure is made up through a mish-mash of paganism and Judaism
2. Paul (or someone else) gives this figure a name - Jesus
3. The Gospel writers write a mythological account of said Jesus, placing him in a historical setting, along with sayings, miracles, etc
4. Certain offshoots of the sect interpret the Gospels literally
5. The emperor aligns himself with this offshoot, and proscribes dissenting views

What is so strange about that? I find this more plausible than traditionally anti-pagan and monotheistic Jews suddenly worshipping a contemporary human as the flesh-and-blood son-of-God.

trendkill

I've never heard of any other religion or movement of any kind being founded in that way, that's what I find strange about it. It's just more likely than not that there was one guy who inspired it. Human nature is to deify the individual they are presented with, not to start out with a deity and then make him into a mortal human later. I suppose it's not impossible, but it's never going to seem like the best explanation to me unless there's some sort of 'smoking gun' type evidence.

ph2ter

I think that Jesus Christ never existed in reality.
He is the result of influence of a dominantly polytheistic environment of the Roman Empire to the monotheistic Jews. That pressure caused some Jews to find in their holy books and in their culture the traces of a deity which in other religions was a son of supreme god and served as a central point in the mystery cults of the time. Because Jewish religion was in origin also polytheistic and because in their popular culture still existed some traces of polytheism, that was easy for them. So they constructed the figure of Jesus from suitable elements of their own scripture and culture in a way that match other mystery cults.
Monotheistic pressure that the Jews had resulted in a human nature of that figure.

spin

I've never head of two religions being founded in just the same way. Why should you expect them to be?

There is no way you can talk meaningfully about likelihoods here. Was King Arthur inspired by one guy? Lancelot? (And don't whine that they aren't religious figures. That is beside the point as to the prime mover of some set of traditions.)

Human nature is to simplify things. Human nature is also to assume what they see at the moment reflects how it was. The gospel religion is not the earliest form of the christian religion. You need to turn to Paul who says he received his gospel not from people but from a revelation of Jesus. Paul may be misrepresenting the issue, but then so may the gospel writers. How would you know?

Again read exactly what Paul says in Galatians, especially Gal 1:12.

But hey, there might have been a Jesus who inspired the growth of the religion. My problem is how one would know either way, for it seems there is insufficient evidence. Do we trust Paul and his revelation or do we trust the basic veracity of the later-written gospels?


spin

karlmarx

I think the smoking gun comes in the fact that Paul never mentions this historical Jesus. He never mentions his sayings, or anything about his life. He never mentions when he lived, what he looked like. When arguing matters of doctrine, Paul could quote Jesus himself to defend his position - he doesn't. He doesn't even mention Jesus' acts to defend his position. Everything that Paul writes is due to a personal revelation - and all points of doctrine come this way. If Paul were talking about a historical person, he would naturally refer to where the founder of his religion lived, what he did, etc, etc. Wouldn't you?

And strangely enough, the Gospels, which are full of fantastic claims and post-date Paul, are full of this detail. It's like people had no idea what Jesus did around Paul's time.... and then they strangely remembered later, 60 years+ on. That's not how things work, really.

DrZoidberg

I believe there existed a person called Jesus born in Bethlehem year 0. Because it was a common name. Do I believe that one of those called Jesus did all those miracles? Of course not.

Just because somebody called Jesus existed, doesn't have to mean jack shit.

trendkill

I see no reason to expect Paul to talk about the historical Jesus in his letters. AFAIK he wasn't writing a gospel, he was setting church leaders straight on doctrine and correct practice. Presumably the legends that later became the Gospels were already common knowledge among Christians in his time. Might he have mentioned some details? Sure, it wouldn't be odd if he did. Is the fact that he doesn't a smoking gun? Not even close.

Clivedurdle

Thou shalt not mimic other members!