Podcast Why Jesus Most Likely Existed, Tim O'Neill

[dbz]

9.10
... And then imagine that other forms of Christianity arose that believed those stories were true and accepted that there was such a Jesus in the early decades of the first century. And then imagine that the proto-form of Christianity died out and then imagine that the forms of Christianity that arose from the belief that there was a historical Jesus decided to destroy all references to the earlier form of Christianity.'
.

https://www.youtube.com/live/16bLztnVJv ... hare&t=548
.
[...]

And imagine that as a result no one noticed that this early proto-form of Christianity - the original form - existed at all until people in the 19th and 20th Century came along and discovered it by looking at the writings of Paul.

• The evidence in 2 Peter or the evidence of Ignatius, or the impact of the problem of silence rebuts O'Neill

23
2 Peter is not talking about Christ mythers. That is imposing a lot under the texts that wouldn’t be there. All he is saying is we did not follow cleverly devised myths. Scholars I’ve read on that regard this as they’re talking about the pagan myths, we didn’t follow those, we were reporting what we saw and even if that’s not what it said, it’s very very general to think they were talking about Christ mythers. (1.29-35)

Let’s look at the evidence. This is 2 Peter 1:15-2:3:...

---

--Carrier (20 July 2020). "99 Problems & the Truth Ain't One: Q&A on the Inspiring Philosophy / Godless Engineer Historicity-of-Jesus Debate (Part I)". Richard Carrier Blogs.

What Happened Looks Really Suspicious

How did the creed go from this:

I want to remind you … By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of greatest importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared… [by revelation to a select few: 1 Corinthians 15:1-8]

To this:

Stop your ears when anyone speaks to you at variance with the Jesus Christ who was descended from David, and came through Mary; who really was born and ate and drank; who really was persecuted under Pontius Pilate; who really was crucified and died in the sight of witnesses in heaven, and on earth, and even under the earth; who really was raised from the dead, too, His Father resurrecting Him, in the same way His Father will resurrect those of us, who believe in Him by Jesus Christ, apart from whom we do not truly have life. [Ignatius, Trallians 9, written between 110 and 160 AD (see scholarship summarized in OHJ, Ch. 8.6)]

How did the creed change so radically, into so conspicuous an assertion of historicism, in just 60 years? That’s as weird on historicity as it is on mythicism. Note what’s changed:

Paul said Jesus “came into being from David’s sperm” (genomenou ek spermatos Dauid, Rom. 1:3; see OHJ, Ch. 11.9). Ignatius now insists we have to say Jesus came “from the descendants of David” (ek genous Dauid). Conspicuously, precisely the thing Paul never said.

Paul said Jesus “came into being from a woman,” and his surrounding argument implies that by this he meant from the woman “Hagar…an allegory” (Gal. 4:4; see OHJ, Ch. 11.9). Ignatius now insists we must say Jesus is “from Mary,” not some generic “woman” in an argument about allegorical women. Notably Paul never mentions a Mary. Not in any creed he attests (see OHJ, Ch. 11.4). So why is her name now important to affirm in the creed?

In both places Paul said Jesus was “made” (ginomai) not “born” (gennaô), by choosing the same word Paul uses to signal divine manufacture (of Adam and our future resurrection bodies), and never of human birth, in conspicuous contrast to the word Paul does always use of human birth. Ignatius conspicuously reverses the vocabulary, and insists we now must say “born” (gennaô) not “made” (ginomai). Exactly the same way we know Christian scribes tried doctoring the manuscripts of Paul (in both Rom. 1:3 and Gal. 4:4 at the same time, thus proving they were well aware of the problem I’m pointing out: OHJ, p. 580, n. 91; hence though both words can mean birth, Christians were aware Paul’s usage did not).

Paul said Jesus ate and drank in a vision (1 Cor. 11:23; see OHJ, Ch. 11.7). Ignatius now insists we must say Jesus ate and drank for real. Why is that suddenly important?

Paul said “the archons of this eon crucified” Jesus (1 Cor. 2:8; see OHJ, pp. 47-48, 321-22, 565-66), language evocative of celestial demonic powers (OHJ, Ch. 5, Element 37), while also saying the Roman authorities never would have (Rom. 13; see OHJ, pp. 565-66). Ignatius now insists we must say Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus, and shun anyone who says otherwise as an agent of the Devil. So who was saying otherwise? Why did the name of the crucifier become important to the creed?

Paul essentially says there were no earthly witnesses to Jesus before his resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3-8; Rom. 10:14-16; Rom. 16:25-26; see OHJ, scripture index, pp. 667-68). Ignatius now says we must say there were. Why did that become necessary? Why did that enter the creed? When? How?

Historicists have theories to explain this. But are they correct? Docetism was the threat Ignatius is retooling the creed to combat, they’ll say. But Ignatius never mentions Docetists. And the only texts we have that show anything like Docetism date a century later, and they don’t say anything like what’s in Ignatius (e.g. some of those texts say Jesus switched places with Simon of Cyrene, which is clearly not what Ignatius is talking about or arguing against). So how do we know what those whom Ignatius is responding to were actually teaching? We don’t get to read anything they actually wrote, not even in quotation. Christian apologists were notorious liars and misrepresenters of their opponents, so we can’t trust them. And none of the later documents that survive that are called Docetic reference the doctrines Ignatius is concerned about. Were the folks Ignatius is writing against those later, unrelated Docetists we have some writings from and that later apologists opposed—or actually mythicists? We aren’t told; but it sounds a lot more like mythicists (OHJ, pp. 317-20), the same ones 2 Peter was forged to rebut (OHJ, p. 351). We can’t show otherwise.

What we are left with is a creed (in fact several quoted by Paul) that never references any historical detail placing any of Jesus’ activity on earth, then a blackout of fifty some years, during which the Gospels get written, and suddenly, a lifetime after the Gospels began circulating, the creed has been retooled to include details that only first appear in them—Mary, Pilate, a human birth with Davidic ancestors, dinner parties, earthly witnesses to the Crucifixion. Not only do they suddenly get added to the creed, they become essential to the creed: we are told we must condemn any Christians who reject them. Which means…there were Christians who rejected them. And we don’t get to hear from them.

---

--Carrier (9 November 2017). "How Did Christianity Switch to a Historical Jesus?". Richard Carrier Blogs.

[MrMacSon]

He's certainly, very disingenuous. I think few people would have a hard time recognizing Marcion's Jesus as not having really existed.

If, for example, Marcionism had become the dominant form of Christianity, and today what most people believed, instead of Jesus having been born in a manger, that he descended directly from heaven and acted on earth as an apparition, there would be little difficulty in arguing that Jesus never existed.

• I was thinking much the same thing (and wondered whether to say it in my post before yours)

Christianity would probably be far better off if there were no birth narratives and no argument over a historical vs a mythical Jesus: he would just be Jesus

But in fact, the reality is that the Jesus who was born in a manger is actually a theological rebuttal to Marcion's Spiritual Jesus who descended from heaven.

• Yep.

Scholars such as David Trobisch seem to accept the primacy of the Marcionite account of Jesus descending as in Luke 3:1; 4:31-34; 4:16, 23, 29-30, etc. (there is a video-clip of Trobisch reading it as such).

Here's the start of BeDuhn's version of Marcion's Evangelion:

3 1In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, when Pilate was governing Judea, 4 31Jesus came down to Capharnaum, a city of Galilee. And he was teaching them in the synagogue; 32and they were amazed at his teaching, because his speech was (delivered) authoritatively.

33And in the synagogue there was a man who had a spirit, an impure daemon, and he cried out with a loud voice, 34“What is there between us and you, Jesus? Did you come to destroy us? I know who you are: the one consecrated by God!” 35And Jesus rebuked it . . .

16And he came to Nazara, where he was in the synagogue, in accord with the custom on the sabbath days. 23And he said to them, “No doubt you will say to me this analogy, ‘Physician, cure yourself—[the things that we heard happened in Capharnaum do here as well].’ . . .

29And standing up, they threw him out of the city, and they led him to the edge of the mountain upon which their city had been built, in order to hurl him down. 30But he, after passing among them, went away.

[then (again, in parts),
...4:40-3,
...5:2-3, 6, 8-14, 18-22, 24-5, 27, 31, 33-5, 37-8, 36,
...6:1-4, 6-10, 5, 12-17, 19-231, 34, etc.]

---

BeDuhn (2013) The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon

I'm pretty sure Matthias Klinghardt agrees (and that others do, too).

The version Dieter Roth gives in his 2009 PhD starts with 4:32-35, then 4:40-43; then:
....5:2, 10-13, 17-18, 20-21, 26-27, 30-31, 35; then
....6:1-2, 6-7, 9, 12-14, etc.

[dbz]

• “Mythicism Dismantled by Tim O’Neil of History for Atheists | Response to David Fitzgerald”. YouTube. Reason to Doubt. 22 December 2022.
• “Does THIS Passage Prove Jesus Historically Existed? ft. Tim O’Neill”. YouTube. Godless Engineer. 16 February 2023.
  Cf. “O’Neill-Fitzgerald Debate”. Vridar. 2014-02-03.
• Carrier (18 February 2023). “A Primer on Successful vs. Bogus Methodology: Tim O’Neill Edition”. Richard Carrier Blogs.

Carrier would likely respond that he has all sorts of arguments to discredit the New Testament on these points. Presumably, these are in his books. But one additional point of interest here is that his arguments cannot rely overmuch on Paul itself. The first reason for this is that it would create a bit of a circular argument, as the reason mythicists want to put aside the New Testament in favour of Paul is because they think that they can find an interpretation in Paul that is more amenable to their position, but that they can interpret Paul that way isn’t sufficient reason to say that we should ignore the context of the New Testament. The second and more serious reason is what I mentioned above, which is that how we should interpret Paul will depend on what we end up thinking the earliest Christians believed. If the earliest Christians believed what the New Testament says they believed, we would interpret Paul’s comments about them in light of that and so in line with historicism. Given that, Carrier cannot say that he can interpret Paul in a mythicist way and so we should count that interpretation against the New Testament’s accuracy, because there is the obvious counter that we can also interpret Paul in a historicist way and, more importantly, in line with the New Testament. So they’d need either to rely mostly on other sources or else find some cases in Paul where we can’t reasonably interpret those cases in a historicist way.


Suffice it to say, this seems like a tall order. When I get to the books, we’ll see if that’s what they did and how well that holds up.

---

--Cybulskie., Allan (3 March 2023). "Historicism, Mythicism, Paul and the New Testament". The Verbose Stoic.

[MrMacSon]

9.10
... And then imagine that other forms of Christianity arose that believed those stories were true and accepted that there was such a Jesus in the early decades of the first century. And then imagine that the proto-form of Christianity died out and then imagine that the forms of Christianity that arose from the belief that there was a historical Jesus decided to destroy all references to the earlier form of Christianity.'
.

https://www.youtube.com/live/16bLztnVJv ... hare&t=548
.
[...]

And imagine that as a result no one noticed that this early proto-form of Christianity - the original form - existed at all until people in the 19th and 20th Century came along and discovered it by looking at the writings of Paul.

• The evidence in 2 Peter or the evidence of Ignatius, or the impact of the problem of silence rebuts O'Neill

I've extended what you quoted from that 2020 web-article of Carrier's to add both 2 Peter 1:15—2:3 and the explicit point that Carrier made:

Richard Carrier, 20 July 2020
"99 Problems & the Truth Ain't One: Q&A on the Inspiring Philosophy / Godless Engineer Historicity-of-Jesus Debate (Part I)"

23

"2 Peter is not talking about Christ mythers. That is imposing a lot under the texts that wouldn’t be there. All's (sic) he is saying is, 'we did not follow cleverly devised myths.' Scholars I’ve read on that regard this as they’re talking about the pagan myths, 'we didn’t follow those, we were reporting [on] what we [actually] saw.' And, even if you are ri-, even if that’s not what it said, it is very, very general to [infirm] they're talking about Christ mythers." [29.13—40 @ https://www.youtube.com/live/GdiUgQFV30 ... are&t=1756]

Let’s look at the evidence. This is 2 Peter 1:15—2:3:

• 15 And I will also make every effort so that you are able to recall these things at any time after my departure. 16 For we did not follow cleverly contrived myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; instead, we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased!”[/i] 18 We ourselves heard this voice when it came from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 We also have the prophetic word strongly confirmed, and you will do well to pay attention to it[/i] … [here the author inserts a digression on prophecy, by way of explaining this remark before returning to the argument] 2 1 There were indeed false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and will bring swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved ways, and the way of truth will be maligned because of them. 3 They will exploit you in their greed with made-up stories. Their condemnation, pronounced long ago, is not idle, and their destruction does not sleep. [Here the author goes on about how awful these people are and how they will be judged, making further clear he means fellow Christians, whose teaching is demonic and must be shunned.]

---

There is no logical way to claim here that 2 Peter is rebutting “pagan myths.” This passage is indisputably rebutting the claims of what this author says are the 'false' Christian teachers he is condemning—and not just condemning, but elaborately warning his readers to shun. Those 'teachers' are “heretics” who rely on “made up stories” that amount to “even denying the Master who redeemed them.” In other words, these are Christians.

... How does this author—who is lying, BTW, as this is a forgery written to represent Peter as condemning this Christian heresy—argue against these heretics? By insisting stories like the Transfiguration are not “cleverly devised myths” that “deny the Master”, but were real historical events, “because I was there, we were there, this really happened!”. Which is a lie—this author is not Peter, and wasn’t there, nor evidently knew anyone who was. Rather, 2 Peter is simply inventing an eyewitness to a story in the Gospels, in order to “prove” the Gospels [were] 'historical' and not “cleverly devised myths,” myths which deny “the truth” and even, he insists, the reality of “the Master.”

... it is very clear what is happening here: there were Christians claiming the Gospel stories were myths, that no one ever actually met Jesus in person as the stories claim ... that teaching required this polemicist [ie. the author of 2 Peter] to respond by [asserting] “no, these were not myths, we were really there.”

---

2 Peter 2:1 is pretty telling ie. about someone trying to influence the writer's version of Christianity

.."They will bring in destructive heresies"

---

eta:
That guy comes back to 2nd Peter at 31.15

And, again, going back to 2nd Peter for the sake of this argument, I'm not assuming it's reliable. That could have been written in the 3rd, 4th century for all I care [we're] in this discussion; it would not challenge what Tacitus actually tells us about a historical Jesus, ok?

Then, at 32.31, Godless Engineer says

And, you know, 2 Peter: it shows that that there are people saying—regardless of whether they're pagans or not—it shows that there were people that were saying that: 'you followed cleverly devised stories' ...

To pull from one of your arguments, using an appeal to authority, John Dominic Crossan has a book out there called, 'The Power of Parable,' where he argues for all of the Gospels, you know, which would be the first accounts of Jesus, would be parables. And, so, it's not all that 'out there' to say that 2 Peter is talking about stories. Who are just saying that, 'oh, these Christians, they're following cleverly devised myths' or cleverly devised stories, rather. So, you know, I feel that 2 Peter is very important to the current argument because of that fact.

[GakuseiDon]

Certainly Mark is first. Marcion is a snapshot in time of what Gospel collections looked like early on, but I don't believe any canonical material derives from Marcion. Rather Marcion is a snapshot of what "proto-Luke" (or as I call it original Luke or Luke') and the earlier version of the Pauline letter collection looked like prior to proto-orthodox revisions.

Both Mark and original Luke I believe are open to Marcionite interoperation. I think Marcion's views were reasonably arrived at based on the Gospel of Mark and Luke'. We can find supporting material for Marcion's views in those works.

Allusions to the Hebrew scriptures are less apparent in Luke' than they were in Mark. But in either case, such allusions were not overt, so surely someone could have missed many of them and not recognized the relationship between the narrative and the scriptures.

Do you think then that when Marcion compiled his Gospel, he missed the more subtle scriptural references in gMark and original gLuke? That he thought his Gospel went back to the actions and sayings of some 'historical' (according to Marcion) docetic Jesus?

Post by GakuseiDon Thu Mar 02, 2023 8:15 pm

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Mar 02, 2023 5:56 pm
I don't know but I think it is safe to conclude the Jesus we know never existed. If there was a historical Jesus he was so different from what we know it is as if he didn't exist anyway.

Yes, that's pretty much been my position for years. I frame it as "I think some kind of historical Jesus is the best explanation for the earliest layer of Christian writings -- the letters of Paul and the Gospel of Mark -- that we have, but its so difficult to get any hard facts from them that he may as well not existed."

This is interesting, because it seems that you are agreeing with SA and I essentially.

Yep. It's been my position for at least 20 years.

The point being, even if there was "some Jesus", if not a single real piece of information about him exists in the Christian writings , other than his name, then the person we read about in Christian writings is NOT "that Jesus". Oh and by the way, it seems that his "name" didn't' exist in the Christian writings either, as the figure being worshiped was called ΙΣ with a bar over it, so really not even anyone named Jesus was written about.

Even so, I'd argue that the best explanation for the Gospels and the letters of Paul is some kind of a historical Jesus. Paul arguably believes that a being called Jesus existed. Since he seems to be writing about a man who lived recently IMHO (first fruits, fullness of time) IMHO, to me the best explanation is that there really was a man. If gMark is an introduction to Paul's letters, then likely gMark thought the same. Of course, what Paul meant gets argued over a lot so fair enough if people disagree. All I can say is what I conclude.

What I can't understand is why some seem to insist that I have to support a Gospel-like Jesus, one that said and did some of the things from the Gospels. I don't think the evidence is there for that. But I still think some kind of a historical Jesus is the best explanation for the letters of Paul and the Gospel of Mark.

Nothing makes me lose interest in a mythicist argument faster than one that starts "Christian apologists claim...!" as though there were only one option on the HJ side.

It's like saying I think Forrest Gump really existed, even though the movie Forrest Gump does not depict the life of the REAL Forrest, I still think there was a Forrest Gump. And even if there was areal person named Forrest Gump, if that person was nothing at all like the character in the movie /book, then its is still the case that the figure in the movie/book never existed.

What if I add to your scenario that it's claimed by the movie maker that the movie was based on or inspired by a real person?

Given the way Hollywood movies often create fictional portrayals of real famous people, one wouldn't know how close that portrayal is (to the point that we could justifiably say that the person portrayed on film never existed), but it would certainly be evidence IMHO that some kind of person existed.

[GakuseiDon]

#2 It seems that the reading of the Gospels as history was at least in part of product of contextual shift, i.e. the introduction of the Gospel stories to new communities that had not previously been worshipers of Jesus. Indeed, the writings of Justin indicate exactly this. Justin tells us that his conversion to Christianity occurred through his reading of the Gospel stories, meaning that he was not someone who was participating in a community of worshipers of KΣ ΙΣ into which the Gospel stories introduced new beliefs, rather Justin had no knowledge of Jesus and was first introduced to KΣ ΙΣ through the Gospel stories.

Actually, Justin was converted to Christianity through the writings of the Old Testament. From his Dialogue with Trypho:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html

"'Should any one, then, employ a teacher?' I say, 'or whence may any one be helped, if not even in them there is truth?'

"'There existed, long before this time, certain men more ancient than all those who are esteemed philosophers, both righteous and beloved by God, who spoke by the Divine Spirit, and foretold events which would take place, and which are now taking place. They are called prophets. These alone both saw and announced the truth to men, neither reverencing nor fearing any man, not influenced by a desire for glory, but speaking those things alone which they saw and which they heard, being filled with the Holy Spirit. Their writings are still extant, and he who has read them is very much helped in his knowledge of the beginning and end of things, and of those matters which the philosopher ought to know, provided he has believed them. For they did not use demonstration in their treatises, seeing that they were witnesses to the truth above all demonstration, and worthy of belief; and those events which have happened, and those which are happening, compel you to assent to the utterances made by them, although, indeed, they were entitled to credit on account of the miracles which they performed, since they both glorified the Creator, the God and Father of all things, and proclaimed His Son, the Christ [sent] by Him...

"When he had spoken these and many other things, which there is no time for mentioning at present, he went away, bidding me attend to them; and I have not seen him since. But straightway a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets, and of those men who are friends of Christ, possessed me; and whilst revolving his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable. Thus, and for this reason, I am a philosopher.

After that, he recommends reading the words of the Saviour: "Moreover, I would wish that all, making a resolution similar to my own, do not keep themselves away from the words of the Saviour. For they possess a terrible power in themselves"

But note that the convincing argument for Justin to convert was the Old Testament. That as a source was much more important for early Christians than the Gospels, at least up to the time of Justin. This can be seen in Acts of the Apostles:

Acts 1.16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

Judas' betrayal was prophecised in the Hebrew Scriptures! It was no random thing.

Acts.17
1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

No eye-witness accounts of Christ's resurrection as proof. Eye-witness accounts were worthless, as sightings of ghosts and aliens today aren't believed. But proving it via the Scriptures -- who can argue otherwise!

Acts.17
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

It wasn't eye-witness accounts that proved it, but searching the Scriptures. Again, in Acts 18:

Acts.18
24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue...
28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

I keep reading arguments that Peter or Paul just had to mention they had eye-witness accounts of a Risen Jesus or Jesus while he was alive in order to convince Jews and pagans to convert, but that makes no sense. Do people today believe fabulous eye-witness accounts by others? Such arguments are treating ancient people as dumb. That's not to say that personal accounts were useless - Justin refers to "memoirs of the apostles" in his writings to the pagans. But he also spends a lot of time justifying Christianity via the Hebrew Scriptures.

[GakuseiDon]

Historicists have theories to explain this. But are they correct? Docetism was the threat Ignatius is retooling the creed to combat, they’ll say. But Ignatius never mentions Docetists. And the only texts we have that show anything like Docetism date a century later, and they don’t say anything like what’s in Ignatius (e.g. some of those texts say Jesus switched places with Simon of Cyrene, which is clearly not what Ignatius is talking about or arguing against). So how do we know what those whom Ignatius is responding to were actually teaching?

---

--Carrier (9 November 2017). "How Did Christianity Switch to a Historical Jesus?". Richard Carrier Blogs.

That's an interesting claim. No actual evidence for Docetism until a century after Ignatius, i.e. the early Third Century CE? Is that the case?

[rgprice]

@GD

But I still think some kind of a historical Jesus is the best explanation for the letters of Paul and the Gospel of Mark.

I don't see this at all. Indeed the exact opposite. I consider Mark the strongest possible testimony against a "historical Jesus". Absolutely nothing in Mark relates to any real person, other than Paul. I don't know why you would say that a real Jesus explains anything about gMark. Clearly the writer had zero interest in any real life of Jesus. The character of Jesus is derived 100% entirely from the Pauline letters and Jewish scriptures. The fact that the writer has not one single thing to say about any real Jesus indicates that there is zero knowledge of, or interest in, any real person.

As for Paul, I think there is a better argument to be made there. On the one hand I think the Pauline Jesus is clearly a divinity, and Paul is not describing a person, but on the other hand, there is some modest difficulty in fully explaining the origin of Paul's divinity. Scriptural interpretation alone gets us very close, but we can't entirely put our finger on the exegesis that gets us to Paul's Lord Jesus Christ, or KΣ ΙΣ XΣ. So this opens a door for the idea that something about some person fills that gap in our knowledge.

But in my view, this is akin to arguments about the origin of life. Yes, as scientists we cannot entirely explain exactly how non-living matter developed into life, although we have a few plausible models that are theoretically viable. So this gap in our scientific knowledge opens the door for creationists to say, "God did it!". It's the same here with, "Jesus did it!"

Actually, Justin was converted to Christianity through the writings of the Old Testament. From his Dialogue with Trypho

Not exactly. Justin's approach to the OT was through the lens of the Gospels. What convinced Justin were the relationships between the Gospels and the Jewish scriptures, proving to him that the life and deeds of Jesus had been foretold by Jewish prophets.

The point is that Justin was not a worshiper of a pre-Gospel Jesus. Justin was converted by the Gospel Jesus. Justin never knew of a form of Christianity without the Gospel Jesus.

[rgprice]

There is another strong rebuttal to O'Neill's comment:

... And then imagine that other forms of Christianity arose that believed those stories were true and accepted that there was such a Jesus in the early decades of the first century. And then imagine that the proto-form of Christianity died out and then imagine that the forms of Christianity that arose from the belief that there was a historical Jesus decided to destroy all references to the earlier form of Christianity.'

And imagine that as a result no one noticed that this early proto-form of Christianity - the original form - existed at all until people in the 19th and 20th Century came along and discovered it by looking at the writings of Paul.

The proposition that there was some real historical Jesus also faces this problem, because the Gospels provably do not tell us about the real life and teachings of any supposed real Jesus. If there was a "real Jesus", that figure could not have been anything like the figure described in the Gospels.

So where were all of the defenders of the real Jesus? Why do we not have a single indication that anyone, anywhere, ever, knew of a Jesus who was different than the Gospel figure?

I think we can safely show that the Gospel story of Jesus is entirely fabricated. That Jesus is a literary invention, created sometime after the First Jewish-Roman War, between 70 and ~135. The Jesus of the Gospels is derived from the Jewish scriptures, and that is a proven fact.

So, if that Jesus is not the "real Jesus", but some "real Jesus" existed. Then why was there zero conflict about the "real life" of Jesus? For example, we know with certainty that the events of the Crucifixion as described in every Gospel account cannot possibly be true. The Gospel Crucifixion is derived from scripture, primarily Psalm 22. It describes things that could not have happened. Likewise, the setting of the Crucifixion is entirely implausible, taking place during the Passover festival. So many aspects of the event are completely unbelievable.

Yet there is not one single alternative account of the Crucifixion! There are vague comments about Crucifixion, like we find from Paul, but there are ZERO PLAUSIBLE accounts of the Crucifixion! No one, at any point, every said, "Hey wait, that's not how it happened!"

Yet, if it were a real event, and that real event inspired the worship of Jesus, then surely there would had to have been real real witnesses. And those real witnesses, who were inspired by the real events, would have had an account of the real Crucifixion that contradicted the Gospel account. Yet no such contradicting, more realistic, account was ever even proposed. No one ever said, "We know of the real Jesus, and these stories aren't accurate."

The only questions ever raised were over how to INTERPRET the stories!

[MrMacSon]

I agree Paul.

#1 We really have no idea how widespread worship of KΣ ΙΣ was prior to the writing of the Gospels.
#2 It seems that the reading of the Gospels as history was at least in part of product of contextual shift, i.e. the introduction of the Gospel stories to new communities that had not previously been worshipers of Jesus. Indeed, the writings of Justin indicate exactly this. Justin tells us that his conversion to Christianity occurred through his reading of the Gospel stories, meaning that he was not someone who was participating in a community of worshipers of KΣ ΙΣ into which the Gospel stories introduced new beliefs, rather Justin had no knowledge of Jesus and was first introduced to KΣ ΙΣ through the Gospel stories.
.

• If Justin knew 'gospels', I'm not sure we can know what versions or 'editions' he knew.
  
  So, I propose use of less 'certain' language about the nature of the 'sources' Justin might have known or used.
  • eg. Less use of the as in avoid ‘the definitive article’
  And, where there is 'confluence' or ‘correspondence’ between a passage in Justin and a canonical Gospel, I think we need to consider the possibility that, if one used or even just 'knew' the other, the direct might have been
  • Justin —> Gospel
  For example:
  
  
  
  ... Justin tells us that his conversion to Christianity occurred through his reading of stories about Jesus ... Justin had no [prior] knowledge of Jesus and was first introduced to KΣ ΙΣ through stories in non-specified sources.
  .
  
  

... Justin's approach to the OT was through the lens of the Gospels. What convinced Justin were the relationships between the Gospels and the Jewish scriptures, proving to him that the life and deeds of Jesus had been foretold by Jewish prophets.

The point is that Justin was not a worshiper of a pre-Gospel Jesus. Justin was converted by the Gospel Jesus. Justin never knew of a form of Christianity without the Gospel Jesus.
.

• And:
  
  
  
  ... Justin's approach to the OT was through the lens of 'memoirs of apostles [which may have been early gospels]. What convinced Justin were the relationships between 'gospels' and the Jewish scriptures, proving to him that the life and deeds of Jesus had been foretold by Jewish prophets.
  
  The point is that ... Justin was converted by a Jesus depicted in nebulous gospels. Justin never knew of a form of Christianity without a 'gospel' Jesus.
  .