Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?

[DeistPaladin]

Also there is no evidence in the letters of the New Testament for an actual Jesus either. Because epistles portray a Jesus who never came down to earth in the first place.

I'm fairly new to the idea that Paul wrote his letters before the Gospels. I don't understand how that works out... Does that mean he single-handedly invented the name and character of Jesus?

Hello Fallen. Before I answer your questions, I need to get one thing clear (a common misunderstanding of Jesus skeptics):

No one, not even the most die-hard mythers, say that "someone just made up Jesus one day". This is not the only alternative to the Gospels being a true story.

Here's what we know. The order of publications of the NT were:

1. Revelation
2. The Epistles (about half of which are considered "authentic")
3. Mark
4. Matthew and Luke
5. John
6. Acts

Second, we know that there was not just one brand of Christianity but many. The distinctions between these early Christianities would make the difference between Islam and Trinitarian Christianity look like petty hairsplitting. There was obviously much disagreement as to what Jesus was and what he preached. Some of the major factions were:

1. Ebionite: Jesus was a mortal man adopted by God as a son, nothing more. Salvation comes through keeping The Jewish Laws. His sacrifice on the cross only fulfilled the need to sacrifice animals. Echoes of this version can be found in Matthew, the most Jewish of the Gospels.
2. Marcionite: Jesus was a higher god, superior to Yahweh, the Jewish god. They rejected all things Jewish, including the entire OT. Salvation comes through faith in the new god, Jesus. There was no childhood or birth of Jesus. He appeared as a fully grown man in the temple one day.
3. Arian: Jesus was an angel send by God. He was separate from and subordinate to Yahweh. They rejected the Trinity.

So if Jesus was a real person, it's clear he didn't leave behind a united group of followers or clear instructions on the faith he preached.

An alternate historical scenario to what the Christians offer can be seen if we read the NT in order. An ancient sect of Jews, chaffing under foreign rule, wondered what happened to Yahweh's pact with Kind David? Where was their promised kingdom? They decided that their kingdom existed in a higher realm.

At first, this messiah was the one depicted in Revelation, a conquering warlord who would restore the kingdom and punish Judea's enemies. This is consistent with Jewish ideas of what the messiah was supposed to be.

Then Paul and others see Jesus in a vision. They have little to offer as to the when and where this messiah lived, though there are some mentions of "seed of David" and such.

Mark brings this messiah down to earth and places him in history. Perhaps these stories were meant to be allegory? Perhaps they were pieced together from urban legends? Perhaps they were based on a real doomcrier (or several of them)? Who knows.

Matthew and Luke, working obviously independent of each other (given their contradictions) add to the story. They give us details of the birth and childhood and a more extended resurrection account.

John is very advanced in theology in comparison. Jesus isn't one with his father until this time. Read the Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) and you'll read about a Jesus that is separate from and subordinate to his father. The new Jesus depicted in John is much more bombastic in his claim to be one with the father. It is clearly written at a time when the Trinity was gaining popularity.

Acts solidifies Catholic authority. Their poster boy Peter is clearly large and in charge. Paul shrinks to become a team player. The bombastic Paul of Galatians is nowhere to be found. The new Paul is a passive player, "sent here" and "sent there". This makes sense in light of how Paul was the poster boy for Marcionite Christianity.

What was the real story of Jesus? God only knows.