Did Jesus exist?

[unknown soldier]

Did Jesus exist as a real person, or is he a fictional character created by the early Christian sect? If Jesus did exist, then how much was he like the Jesus of the New Testament? Was the "real" Jesus so different from the Biblical Jesus that the Biblical Jesus is essentially a myth like Osiris or Thor?

My position on the issue of the historicity of Jesus is that although I wouldn't say he was not historical, I'm not convinced by the evidence that he existed either. As I see it, the biggest problem for historical-Jesus studies isn't so much that Jesus didn't exist but that good reasons to think he existed don't exist. In other words, historical-Jesus proponents have not met the burden of proof.

[unknown soldier]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #90]

Before we take this any further, are you saying that Paul knew about Jesus for an extended period of time before Paul was aware of the gospel? If that's your argument, then you'll need to explain how that was possible. It seems very unlikely to me that Paul never heard of the kingdom of heaven myth until long after he became acquainted with Jesus. My position is much more probable: Paul claimed that he became aware of the gospel (and that includes Jesus, of course) by revelation. Now, if Paul is sincere in making that claim, then he was delusional. If he was not sincere, then obviously his dishonesty disqualifies him from being a credible source of information about any historical Jesus.

[Mithrae]

Before we take this any further, are you saying that Paul knew about Jesus for an extended period of time before Paul was aware of the gospel? If that's your argument, then you'll need to explain how that was possible. It seems very unlikely to me that Paul never heard of the kingdom of heaven myth until long after he became acquainted with Jesus. My position is much more probable: Paul claimed that he became aware of the gospel (and that includes Jesus, of course) by revelation. Now, if Paul is sincere in making that claim, then he was delusional. If he was not sincere, then obviously his dishonesty disqualifies him from being a credible source of information about any historical Jesus.

You seem to be lumping all ideas about Jesus into a single, monolithic whole (a tendency which I've noted before). Paul himself explicitly tells us - as the major theme of this letter to the Galatians as a whole - that his ideas about Christian theology, about "the gospel," were not identical to the ideas of some people preaching "a different gospel." For example from the incident at Antioch in chapter 2 we can infer that some men "from James" were of the "circumcision faction" and believed in following the Torah so closely as to withdraw from eating with ritually 'unclean' Gentiles.

The Christian movement began with Jews in Jewish Palestine, so it was only natural for its earliest followers to continue observing most if not all of their traditional customs: They may have believed that "the Lord Jesus Christ gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age" and they may even have believed that "in Christ Jesus... we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith" - or they may not have believed either of those things, it's hard to be sure. But the 'big' difference in Paul's revelation "when God... was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles" was that obedience to the Law was actually a kind of curse; not necessary for salvation, not an optional extra pleasing to God, not even a harmless continuation of cultural tradition (though he seems to have accepted it as essentially harmless in some cases, including himself when it suited his purposes) but actually a kind of snare which could trap the unwary into thinking about salvation in terms of ritual works rather than faith and love.

This is explained throughout the whole letter to the Galatians but, again, this view of his gospel is explicitly spelled out in chapter 3 where he associates the beginning of the gospel with Abraham, hundreds of years before the Law of Moses:

• Galatians 3:6 Just as Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," 7 so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you." 9 For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed.

A person who continues to claim that Paul said "all" his knowledge of Jesus came by revelation is simply and obviously lying. Paul did not use such absolute quantifiers, and even the most cursory reading of his letter shows that it's not an all-or-nothing question, that there were different nuances or doctrines under consideration by Paul and his readers. He wrote that his gospel - and more specifically his gospel to the Gentiles - came to him by revelation, which among other things seems to include inspiration through the scriptures.

But he also clearly indicates that he learned what others were saying about Christ both before his conversion - offending him enough to try to destroy the movement - and afterwards from 'pillars' of the church like Peter and Jesus' own brother James, such that his teaching was similar enough to mostly align himself with them and "proclaim the faith he once tried to destroy."

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #90]

Before we take this any further, are you saying that Paul knew about Jesus for an extended period of time before Paul was aware of the gospel? If that's your argument, then you'll need to explain how that was possible. It seems very unlikely to me that Paul never heard of the kingdom of heaven myth until long after he became acquainted with Jesus. My position is much more probable: Paul claimed that he became aware of the gospel (and that includes Jesus, of course) by revelation. Now, if Paul is sincere in making that claim, then he was delusional. If he was not sincere, then obviously his dishonesty disqualifies him from being a credible source of information about any historical Jesus.

GOOD GRIEF! I cannot for the life of me understand what you are not getting? First, I am not making any argument at all concerning what Paul may, or may not have known about Jesus. This is not my burden. What I have demonstrated would be, when Paul claims to have received the gospel through revelation, this does not in any way whatsoever demonstrate that Paul would not have had a knowledge of a real historical Jesus, before this revelation. In other words, Paul could have very well known about a real historical Jesus, with absolutely no knowledge of any sort of gospel. I don't know how to say this any better? Paul would not have to have any knowledge of the gospel, in order to know there would have been a real historical Jesus.

Allow me to say this as plain as I can. My argument has nothing whatsoever to do with attempting to demonstrate Paul would have had any sort of knowledge of Jesus at all. Again, what I have demonstrated is, when Paul claims his knowledge of the gospel came through revelation, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with whether he would have had a knowledge of a real historical Jesus before this revelation. You are using the passage in Galatians as a "proof text", in an attempt to demonstrate Paul would have had no knowledge of any sort of Jesus before this revelation, when this passage demonstrates no such thing.

If that's your argument, then you'll need to explain how that was possible.

As explained above, this is not my argument. However, to go on to explain how this would be easily possible, Paul could have witnessed Jesus with his own eyes, which means he would have been quite aware of a real historical Jesus, but this would not in any way necessitate that Paul would have been aware of any sort of gospel. Please be careful here, because I am not suggesting this would have been what happened. Rather, you asked "how this would be possible" and I am simply giving an example of how it would indeed be, possible.

It seems very unlikely to me

And that seems to be your problem! You simply seem to go on what "seems very unlikely" when this would have nothing whatsoever to do with bringing you any closer to what the truth may be.

It seems very unlikely to me that Paul never heard of the kingdom of heaven myth until long after he became acquainted with Jesus.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say, "the kingdom of heaven myth"? I do however know what the gospel Paul would have been referring to, and as I have demonstrated, Paul would not have to know anything about this gospel, in order to know that a real historical Jesus would have existed. Again, let me be clear. I am not in any way at this point attempting to argue that Paul would have had any sort of knowledge of a real historical Jesus. This would be a completely different argument. What I have demonstrated is, Paul would not have to have any sort of knowledge of the gospel, in order to have knowledge of a real historical Jesus, which is what you are attempting to argue.

My position is much more probable:

Which could in fact be the problem? In other words, instead of going on the facts, and evidence we have, you simply rely upon what, "seems to be much more probable" to your mind.

Paul claimed that he became aware of the gospel (and that includes Jesus, of course) by revelation.

Please explain to us, how in the world that, Paul's becoming "aware of the gospel" would have included Paul being unaware of a real historical Jesus before this time? This simply does not follow. Paul could have been well aware of a real historical Jesus, who he would have been opposed to, and then this gospel would have been revealed to him, which would have included this Jesus he already knew would have been a real historical figure. You are attempting to make the argument that this passage in Galatians, somehow demonstrates Paul would have had no knowledge of any sort of historical Jesus before this revelation, when this passage demonstrates no such thing.

Now, if Paul is sincere in making that claim, then he was delusional.

How does one making the claim that the gospel was revealed to him, as opposed to being taught by any human, demonstrate one would be, "delusional"? Unless of course you can demonstrate this would have not been the case?

If he was not sincere, then obviously his dishonesty disqualifies him from being a credible source of information about any historical Jesus.

The problem here is, you cannot demonstrate that Paul would not have been sincere.

The bottom line here is, you seem to want to insist that Paul would have had no knowledge of any sort of Jesus at all, until this alleged revelation. However, as I have demonstrated, Paul's knowledge of the gospel, would have nothing whatsoever to do with whether Paul would have had a knowledge of a real historical Jesus. In other words, it would be extremely possible for Paul to have a knowledge of a real historical Jesus, with no knowledge whatsoever of any sort of gospel which may be tied to this Jesus he may have been well aware did in fact exist.

[unknown soldier]

Paul himself explicitly tells us - as the major theme of this letter to the Galatians as a whole - that his ideas about Christian theology, about "the gospel," were not identical to the ideas of some people preaching "a different gospel."

That is correct. Paul evidently realized that since other people could come up with gospels too, he needed to deal with the competition by preaching against them.

...the 'big' difference in Paul's revelation "when God... was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles" was that obedience to the Law was actually a kind of curse; not necessary for salvation, not an optional extra pleasing to God, not even a harmless continuation of cultural tradition (though he seems to have accepted it as essentially harmless in some cases, including himself when it suited his purposes) but actually a kind of snare which could trap the unwary into thinking about salvation in terms of ritual works rather than faith and love.

Again, you are correct. Paul realized that many Jews might have seen "traditional" Judaism as adequate for their relations with God, and if they did see Judaism that way, then they would have no need for Paul's theology. Paul then had to create a need for the gospel by arguing that Judaism was inadequate and that the Jews needed the gospel Paul preached if they wanted to be right with God.

This is explained throughout the whole letter to the Galatians but, again, this view of his gospel is explicitly spelled out in chapter 3 where he associates the beginning of the gospel with Abraham, hundreds of years before the Law of Moses:

• Galatians 3:6 Just as Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," 7 so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you." 9 For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed.

Obviously, the large majority of the Jews of Paul's day would disagree with Paul's saying that his gospel started with Abraham. Nevertheless, Paul here is making his case that the gospel is intimately intertwined with Judaism in that the gospel originated with Judaism. To accomplish that task, Paul tells us that Abraham was one of the first if not the first Jew to have the gospel revealed to him by God.

I'm not sure what your point is, though. All Paul here is saying is that his gospel had been "delivered" to Abraham. We are told nothing about the details of that gospel or when it had first been revealed to Paul. Neither are we told that Paul already knew about Christ prior to Paul's claimed receipt of the revelation of the gospel.

A person who continues to claim that Paul said "all" his knowledge of Jesus came by revelation is simply and obviously lying.

So if somebody disagrees with your interpretation, then that person is lying. You are referring to me, of course.

Paul did not use such absolute quantifiers, and even the most cursory reading of his letter shows that it's not an all-or-nothing question, that there were different nuances or doctrines under consideration by Paul and his readers. He wrote that his gospel - and more specifically his gospel to the Gentiles - came to him by revelation, which among other things seems to include inspiration through the scriptures.

I'm not sure how any of this demonstrates that Paul knew about Jesus prior to his revelation. Isn't that what you're arguing?

But he also clearly indicates that he learned what others were saying about Christ both before his conversion - offending him enough to try to destroy the movement - and afterwards from 'pillars' of the church like Peter and Jesus' own brother James, such that his teaching was similar enough to mostly align himself with them and "proclaim the faith he once tried to destroy."

Where did Paul clearly say he learned about Christ before his conversion? If he did know about Jesus prior to his conversion, then it's almost certain that he became acquainted with the gospel at that time. Presumably that's why he persecuted Christians. If so, then he was lying about having the gospel revealed to him.

Anyway, my version of these supposed events is that Paul never actually violently persecuted Christians. There weren't even any Christians then to persecute but only some people who had beliefs that later led to Christian dogma. Also, the Romans would not have allowed Paul to persecute anybody because such activity might have led to insurrection among the Jews. Paul made up his persecution story to amaze those who followed Christ with his supposed magical conversion. Paul became acquainted with beliefs rooted in the Christ figure from other believers. And as I noted before, Paul came up with his gospel-revelation story to acquire special status among those who had other gospels. In so doing he tried to hide the fact that he had actually heard the gospel from people like Cephas and James.

In any event, it should be clear that Paul is not a good source of information about a historical Jesus. He was a propagandist who didn't hesitate to play fast and loose with the truth if he thought it would benefit him. He was making things up, in other words.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #94]

Paul evidently realized that since other people could come up with gospels too, he needed to deal with the competition by preaching against them.

This is complete, and utter assumption, and speculation, on top of the fact that there are no facts, and evidence in support of what you are saying. I am certainly fine with whatever opinion you would like to hold, but let us not pretend that it would be anywhere close to being fact. More importantly though, is the fact that this would have nothing to do with the actual argument involved here.

Paul then had to create a need for the gospel

And here again we have pure speculation, without a shred of facts, and evidence in support, on top of the fact it would have nothing to do with the argument being made.

So if somebody disagrees with your interpretation, then that person is lying.

As for me, I cannot say this would be a lie, however something has indeed gone way wrong here. In other words, you have yet to explain how Paul claiming to have the gospel revealed to him, would have anything at all to do with whether Paul would have known of the real historical Jesus, before this revelation of the gospel? Again, this may not be a lie, but it is indeed beyond my imagination how one could even come to such a conclusion? Paul could have very well known who Jesus was, and could have also known Jesus had been crucified, being convinced this Jesus he knew to exist was dead. This could in fact be the reason Paul was so opposed to those who continued to preach this Jesus he knew to be a real historical character. However, when the gospel was revealed to him, which would have included this Jesus he knew to be a real historical character, it would be then when Paul begins to preach this same gospel.

Now, what I have just said above, is not only possible, it actually is what the facts, and evidence we have suggests. So then, exactly what facts, and evidence do we have, which would even hint at the idea that Paul could not have had any knowledge of a real historical Jesus before this alleged revelation of the gospel, because I can assure you that Paul claiming to have received this revelation of the gospel, would have nothing to do with whether Paul would have had a knowledge of Jesus before this time.

I'm not sure how any of this demonstrates that Paul knew about Jesus prior to his revelation. Isn't that what you're arguing?

I can tell you this. This is not what I am arguing! In other words, I am not in any way attempting to demonstrate that Paul would have known anything at all about a real historical Jesus. Rather, what I have demonstrated is, Paul would not have to be saying that he had no idea of who Jesus would have been, simply by claiming the gospel had been revealed to him.

In any event, it should be clear that Paul is not a good source of information about a historical Jesus.

I am not sure how anyone could demonstrate such a thing, but again, I, myself, am not attempting to defend Paul as being "good source of information about a historical Jesus". My whole argument is the fact that Paul would not have to be ignorant of the real historical Jesus, in order to have the gospel revealed to him. You have used this passage in order to attempt to demonstrate Paul would not have known anything at all about a real historical Jesus, when this passage does no such thing in the least. If this is the best argument you have against a real historical Jesus, then all I can say is, it is very sad.

[brunumb]

Now, what I have just said above, is not only possible, it actually is what the facts, and evidence we have suggests.

All of your arguments are really nothing more than what might be suggested by some minimal evidence. "We have these letters" and now let us speculate on what should have, could have, or would have happened. Possibilities are one thing, probabilities are completely another.

[unknown soldier]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #94]

Paul evidently realized that since other people could come up with gospels too, he needed to deal with the competition by preaching against them.

This is complete, and utter assumption, and speculation, on top of the fact that there are no facts, and evidence in support of what you are saying. I am certainly fine with whatever opinion you would like to hold, but let us not pretend that it would be anywhere close to being fact. More importantly though, is the fact that this would have nothing to do with the actual argument involved here.

Wrong again. Galatians 1:8 (NRSV):

But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!

If we can trust whomever wrote Galatians (presumably Paul), then Paul was preaching against other gospels made up by other people--exactly like I said.

Paul then had to create a need for the gospel

And here again we have pure speculation, without a shred of facts, and evidence in support...

I already documented (with Mithrae's help) how Paul was trying to stuff the Christian gospel into Judaism claiming that it had been "delivered to Abraham." (See Galatians 3:6.)

Paul could have very well known who Jesus was, and could have also known Jesus had been crucified, being convinced this Jesus he knew to exist was dead.

And here again we have pure speculation, without a shred of facts, and evidence in support, on top of the fact it would have nothing to do with the argument being made. In addition to your own words pointing out how you are wrong here, I also have already pointed out how stupid it is to think that Paul knew about Jesus but knew nothing about the gospel!

...Paul would not have to be saying that he had no idea of who Jesus would have been, simply by claiming the gospel had been revealed to him.

I'm well aware that you created a "gospel of not Jesus" to save a historical Jesus.

You have used this passage in order to attempt to demonstrate Paul would not have known anything at all about a real historical Jesus, when this passage does no such thing in the least.

Actually, if there was a historical Jesus, then Paul surely did know about him long before Paul's supposed "revelation." Paul later made up his revelation story trying to one-up his competition. You don't seem to understand this possibility because you cannot accept a Paul who was wrong.

[Realworldjack]

Now, what I have just said above, is not only possible, it actually is what the facts, and evidence we have suggests.

All of your arguments are really nothing more than what might be suggested by some minimal evidence. "We have these letters" and now let us speculate on what should have, could have, or would have happened. Possibilities are one thing, probabilities are completely another.

All of your arguments are really nothing more than what might be suggested by some minimal evidence.

Well, I would suggest that it would be way more than "minimal evidence", seeing as how you have failed to supply any evidence whatsoever that Christianity would be false. However, the fact of the matter would be, I have absolutely admitted to the fact that I cannot demonstrate what it is I believe to be fact, and I am fine with this. The question is, are you fine with the fact that you cannot in any way demonstrate what you believe concerning Christianity to be fact?

"We have these letters" and now let us speculate on what should have, could have, or would have happened.

First, you need to realize, you are late to this conversation. We have one who is attempting to argue that since Paul claimed to have received a revelation of the gospel, this somehow demonstrates that Paul could not have known anything at all concerning Jesus, until this revelation. With this being the case, I have simply demonstrated, using very possible scenarios, that this would be false. In fact, I have actually qualified this by saying, that I am not attempting to demonstrate that Paul would have had any knowledge whatsoever about an historical Jesus. Therefore, this should demonstrate exactly why I am not only using speculation, but am admitting to this fact, in order to demonstrate that Paul could have very well known about a real historical Jesus, before his knowledge of the gospel. The point is, we have one who is claiming, we have this letter from Paul, and goes on to speculate exactly what we need to believe concerning what is contained in this letter, which is exactly what you are accusing me of. But, somehow, and for some reason, it is me who you choose to point out the fact that I am the one who is using speculation, when I actually admit to this being the fact, while you seem to ignore the one who is actually using speculation, without acknowledging this fact? GOOD GRIEF! However, in most of the conversations I have had with you, I do not speculate, but rather simply use the facts.

Possibilities are one thing, probabilities are completely another.

My friend, "possibilities, and probabilities" get you nowhere closer to the truth, which is why I usually only deal with the facts, and evidence. However, when one is attempting to make the argument that it would not be possible for Paul to have known about a real historical Jesus before the revelation of the gospel he is said to have, it is perfectly legitimate for me to demonstrate this error, by supplying the possibilities.

In the end, it would be a fact we have these letters you have referred to, and I acknowledge the fact that I cannot demonstrate what it is I am convinced of concerning these letters, but can rather only share the facts, and evidence in support of what I believe concerning these letters. On the other hand, you either have no opinion at all concerning these letters containing truth, or not, (which is highly unlikely since you spend so much time attempting to refute them) or, you are in the same boat with me, in that you can in no way demonstrate what it is you believe concerning these letters we have, as to whether they would contain truth, or not. The only difference seems to be, I acknowledge this to be the case, and am fine with it, while there are others who seem to be under the impression the position they hold is a demonstrated fact. In other words, if you believe these letters to be false, you have failed to demonstrate this to be the case.

[Mithrae]

But the 'big' difference in Paul's revelation "when God was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles" was that obedience to the Law was... actually a kind of snare which could trap the unwary into thinking about salvation in terms of ritual works rather than faith and love.

This is explained throughout the whole letter to the Galatians but, again, this view of his gospel is explicitly spelled out in chapter 3 where he associates the beginning of the gospel with Abraham, hundreds of years before the Law of Moses:

• Galatians 3:6 Just as Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," 7 so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you." 9 For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed.

Obviously, the large majority of the Jews of Paul's day would disagree with Paul's saying that his gospel started with Abraham. Nevertheless, Paul here is making his case that the gospel is intimately intertwined with Judaism in that the gospel originated with Judaism. To accomplish that task, Paul tells us that Abraham was one of the first if not the first Jew to have the gospel revealed to him by God.

I'm not sure what your point is, though. All Paul here is saying is that his gospel had been "delivered" to Abraham. We are told nothing about the details of that gospel or when it had first been revealed to Paul. Neither are we told that Paul already knew about Christ prior to Paul's claimed receipt of the revelation of the gospel.

We're told that Paul had heard things others were saying about Christ by his opposition to and 'persecution' of their church, as I've pointed out numerous times. You now seem to have conceded this at the end of your subsequent post to RWJ; "if there was a historical Jesus, then Paul surely did know about him long before Paul's supposed "revelation."" So the only question remaining is whether Paul's description of his revelation denies prior knowledge of Jesus. Obviously, he does not say that in so many words; all he says is that he received the 'good news' he preached through revelation. Your entire argument hinges on asserting/assuming that Paul's gospel or his good news was identical to and co-extensive with "the story of Jesus." But since Paul says that in scripture the gospel was revealed to Abraham - obviously without the story of Jesus - it's clear that your already far-fetched assumption is directly contradicted by Paul's own explicit words.

The gospel, as supposedly revealed to Abraham and to Paul, was that God's blessing or justification comes by faith rather than by ritual works of the law. That was good news in which Gentiles especially could rejoice; hence Paul's description of his revelation/conversion "when God... was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles" (Gal. 1:16) and that "I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised" (Gal. 2:7). As an aside - a technicality perhaps but quite relevant to understanding Paul's views - note that Abraham was not a Jew, did not observe the Law of Moses and was not even circumcised at the time of the incidents Paul cites.

A person who continues to claim that Paul said "all" his knowledge of Jesus came by revelation is simply and obviously lying.

So if somebody disagrees with your interpretation, then that person is lying. You are referring to me, of course.

I don't know, are you continuing to claim that Paul said "all" his knowledge of Jesus came by revelation?

Interestingly just a few posts ago - when your rather strained interpretation of a single sentence from Galatians failed to convince anyone - you were perfectly happy to throw out a particularly uncivil accusation of lying: "we're seeing a new low in Christian apologetics here, something I wasn't sure was possible.... Apologists are so desperate that they deny their own beliefs to save those beliefs."

I've been tuning in to the news from the US election occasionally and one commentator had an interesting description of Donald Trump as 'creating his own bubbles of reality' or something to that effect. Whether or not she was merely being tactful in that instance her phrase, along with RWJ's similarly tactful comments, reminds me that even if someone did keep insisting that Paul said "all" his knowledge of Jesus came by revelation, maybe they wouldn't necessarily be lying, per se.

Paul did not use such absolute quantifiers, and even the most cursory reading of his letter shows that it's not an all-or-nothing question, that there were different nuances or doctrines under consideration by Paul and his readers. He wrote that his gospel - and more specifically his gospel to the Gentiles - came to him by revelation, which among other things seems to include inspiration through the scriptures.

I'm not sure how any of this demonstrates that Paul knew about Jesus prior to his revelation. Isn't that what you're arguing?

As explained above (for the umpth time), Paul says that he viciously opposed what other people were saying about Jesus. But he writes that the gospel - and more particularly, his gospel for the Gentiles - came to him by revelation.

But he also clearly indicates that he learned what others were saying about Christ both before his conversion - offending him enough to try to destroy the movement - and afterwards from 'pillars' of the church like Peter and Jesus' own brother James, such that his teaching was similar enough to mostly align himself with them and "proclaim the faith he once tried to destroy."

Where did Paul clearly say he learned about Christ before his conversion? If he did know about Jesus prior to his conversion, then it's almost certain that he became acquainted with the gospel at that time. Presumably that's why he persecuted Christians. If so, then he was lying about having the gospel revealed to him.

Once again - is this really such a complex idea to grasp? - Paul writes that his gospel to the Gentiles was not taught to him by any human. An apparent inability to understand the distinction between similar but divergent theologies or even between alleged history (Jesus) and theology (gospel) would obviously be a crippling limitation in trying to understand or coherently discuss this topic.

Anyway, my version of these supposed events is that Paul never actually violently persecuted Christians. There weren't even any Christians then to persecute but only some people who had beliefs that later led to Christian dogma. Also, the Romans would not have allowed Paul to persecute anybody because such activity might have led to insurrection among the Jews. Paul made up his persecution story to amaze those who followed Christ with his supposed magical conversion. Paul became acquainted with beliefs rooted in the Christ figure from other believers. And as I noted before, Paul came up with his gospel-revelation story to acquire special status among those who had other gospels. In so doing he tried to hide the fact that he had actually heard the gospel from people like Cephas and James.

In any event, it should be clear that Paul is not a good source of information about a historical Jesus. He was a propagandist who didn't hesitate to play fast and loose with the truth if he thought it would benefit him. He was making things up, in other words.

You haven't provided a single scrap of evidence to suggest that Paul's claims are unreliable... your paragraph of imaginative naked speculation notwithstanding. I take Paul's claims with a grain of salt, as I do all unverified claims, but off the top of my head there's really nothing to suggest that anything he says is historically false. On the contrary, his defensiveness of his 'apostle' status (Gal. 1-2; 1 Cor. 9, 15; 2 Cor. 11) strongly suggests he was a latecomer to an established movement; his focus mostly on Jesus' death and resurrection, far from suggesting a non- or quasi-historical Jesus whose life and deeds could be invented at will, instead implies a reluctance to draw attention to an aspect of Christology where he was distinctly disadvantaged/inferior to those who'd witnessed the actual facts; his extreme approach to a grace theology, to the point of even denying human free will (Rom. 8-9, Eph. 1), seems like a radical antithesis to the works theology he claims to have once held (Phil. 3) consistent with a genuine crisis of faith.

It's one thing for you to accuse others of lying or "denying their own beliefs" merely when they aren't persuaded by your dubious interpretation of a sentence from Galatians: But here you are adopting the same approach towards the available historical data itself, claiming without even the flimsiest of pretexts that it is all simply false just because it doesn't lead to the kind of conclusions which you seem to prefer!

Paul was a local, Jewish contemporary of Jesus. He really doesn't tell us all that much about the man himself beyond his mere existence ("born of a woman under the law" in Gal. 4) and crucifixion - which could have been more or less common knowledge and, though we're told so in the surviving documents, which Paul might have been in a position to witness - and a fragment of his teaching on divorce (1 Cor. 7). But that very fact of Paul's relative disinterest in the actual life of Jesus makes those few scraps of information fairly reliable. More importantly however, Paul (like Josephus) provides direct and compelling evidence regarding the existence of Jesus' brother James: Not that groundless speculation is ever convincing, but trying to concoct some explanation for how Paul and Josephus, neither of them big fans of James, were nevertheless somehow deluded into thinking him the brother of a non-existent Jesus is a particularly weak spot in the mythicist theories.

[brunumb]

Well, I would suggest that it would be way more than "minimal evidence", seeing as how you have failed to supply any evidence whatsoever that Christianity would be false. However, the fact of the matter would be, I have absolutely admitted to the fact that I cannot demonstrate what it is I believe to be fact, and I am fine with this.

When extraordinary claims are made, it is not up to the one not accepting them to demonstrate that they are false. Have you provided any evidence that all the other religions out there are false? In any case, your admission that you can't demonstrate that Christianity is true is all that is necessary.