Lataster, after taking apart the pauline epistles, writes:
Quote:Had there been an earthly and historical Jesus, Paul’s writings might be expected to portray him in a more historical manner (with reliable and trustworthy sources named), and there certainly would have been fewer disagreements – and less violence – among ancient and modern Christians. It is noteworthy that there did exist early Christians who held alternative views on Jesus’ fleshly existence. There are also numerous passages within the Pauline Epistles that portray a Jesus that is very different from the Gospels’ image. A Jesus is depicted, who need not necessarily have been on Earth, at a certain point in our history.
The example of the Luddites also demonstrates how a movement/s and writings can spring forth from (or be retrospectively associated with) a character that scholars have no good reason to assume existed historically, and how a movement can have many ‘origins’. It is therefore not necessary that there was a historical Jesus behind the beginnings of Christianity; and the writings of early Christians, as well as the clear evolution of the story among the available texts, give us ample reason to doubt that there was a historical Jesus at all. As Droge noted, “To start a religion, all you need is a name.”
