Paul did, and claimed to have met Jesus. So either he’s a liar (hardly a surprising quality in a cult leader as we know from modern cult leaders) or someone resembling Jesus existed. I think the former substantially more likely given that the Jesus he claims to have met is absent from all contemporaneous documentation.
I’m afraid I’m I’d have to look up the literature about the historicity of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and whether there is hard evidence to show that their purported authors were real people with those names who really wrote those texts. I don’t know offhand. It’s not a topic that’s ever been of interest to me.
However I do know that all of the Gospels were written long after Jesus’ supposed life and death. Hence they don’t count as contemporaneous accounts even if you don’t automatically discount them as historical evidence because they are religious manifestos and not historical records. They aren’t eyewitness reports, they’re collections of myths put together by people who weren’t alive at the time the supposed events took place.
Thanks for the correction, and upvoted for keeping me honest. Was it that he claimed to have met people who had met Jesus, or something similar? I recall something of the sort but I’m not fully trusting the memory.
Yes- he mentioned his interaction with the other disciples, and said that they’d had the privilege of meeting Jesus in the flesh. It’s in Romans or Hebrews, I forget which.
Er, no he didn’t. He specifically did not claim this.
“Matthew”, “Mark” and “John” were tags added later to those Gospels. “Luke” is traditionally attributed to Luke the Evangelist, a companion of Paul’s, who wasn’t an eyewitness to Jesus.
The gospels are dismal failures as history—even apart from the miracles described therein.
Did Paul exist? What about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
Paul did, and claimed to have met Jesus. So either he’s a liar (hardly a surprising quality in a cult leader as we know from modern cult leaders) or someone resembling Jesus existed. I think the former substantially more likely given that the Jesus he claims to have met is absent from all contemporaneous documentation.
I’m afraid I’m I’d have to look up the literature about the historicity of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and whether there is hard evidence to show that their purported authors were real people with those names who really wrote those texts. I don’t know offhand. It’s not a topic that’s ever been of interest to me.
However I do know that all of the Gospels were written long after Jesus’ supposed life and death. Hence they don’t count as contemporaneous accounts even if you don’t automatically discount them as historical evidence because they are religious manifestos and not historical records. They aren’t eyewitness reports, they’re collections of myths put together by people who weren’t alive at the time the supposed events took place.
In no way did Paul claim to have met living Jesus. Resurrected Jesus, yes—via miracle. Living, pre-crucifixion Jesus, no.
Thanks for the correction, and upvoted for keeping me honest. Was it that he claimed to have met people who had met Jesus, or something similar? I recall something of the sort but I’m not fully trusting the memory.
Yes- he mentioned his interaction with the other disciples, and said that they’d had the privilege of meeting Jesus in the flesh. It’s in Romans or Hebrews, I forget which.
Er, no he didn’t. He specifically did not claim this.
“Matthew”, “Mark” and “John” were tags added later to those Gospels. “Luke” is traditionally attributed to Luke the Evangelist, a companion of Paul’s, who wasn’t an eyewitness to Jesus.
The gospels are dismal failures as history—even apart from the miracles described therein.