Please direct me to a timeline showing the development of religion formed from Greek deities. Now, create for me a different timeline consistent with your belief that the Greek gods were not real.
My point: Your question implies that a timeline showing the development of a Jesus legend and religion would look different from a timeline showing the development of a Jesus history and religion. Actually, they do not look radically different.
In The God Who Wasn't There, I focus on the first century, where the greatest differences are, so in this answer I will also focus mostly on the timeline of the first century.
We would expect that the greatest difference would be in around 0 - 33 CE, when Jesus was supposed to have lived. The written accounts of Jesus' actions in that period would create the start of a timeline different than that of a legend. There are, of course, no such accounts. So the evidence from this period is consistent with a Jesus legend having been invented later.
If we look at the next 30 to 40 years, we can see that Christianity now exists. But the "historical" Jesus of the Gospels does not. Jesus is being worshipped, but he still hasn't lived on earth. This is more consistent with a mythical Jesus than a historical one. Still, the timeline looks the same. Paul wrote what he wrote; his words do not require a human who recently lived to play the part of his Lord.
In The God Who Wasn't There, I present a timeline of the first century like this:
Along with this narration: "Jesus lived. Everyone forgot. Then they remembered."
This, to me, describes the attitude of those who find it unremarkable that there is so little about this Jesus...
Born in Bethlehem
A genius at 12 years old
Miracles
Wandering ministry
Entered Jerusalem on donkey
Tantrum in the temple
Betrayal by Judas
Captured
Trials
Conviction
...in the records of Christianity before the appearance of the gospel named Mark.
Of course, even in Mark some of the above elements are still missing. From Mark on forward in the conventional timeline, it should be obvious that a historical Jesus is not the least bit necessary.
Jesus didn't need to live for Mark to write what Mark wrote. His gospel is not at all out of character for an allegorical tale inspired by scriptures. And Jesus certainly didn't need to live for the religious to begin converting legend into history--we see this happen with regularity in the present day. Jesus didn't need to live for the various early Christianities to form, or for one official version to emerge from them. (Did Zeus need to be real for his worshippers to worship him, kill for him, and die for him? Poseidon? Attis? Mithras? Osiris?)
Thus, on most conventional timelines, there is little in the development of Christianity that requires a human Jesus. One only needs to accept that religious fanatics will make stuff up, and others will believe it as truth.
This is centuri0n, aka Frank Turk, who has been an internet apologist for about 10 years and has never really gained anything for himself through it but a handful of friends and a lot of ill-will. Most people, honestly, do not like to argue with him because he doesn't know how to let it go. He's a blogger of some minor note, and he's a "calvinist".
Posts
