Jesus Vs. Christ: Did the Historical Jesus Even Matter?

When reviewing Paul’s overall mythology, one begins to question whether the historical Jesus even mattered, and particularly when comparing the Christ of Paul’s theology with the Jesus of the Gospel narratives. This debate touches on the very foundation of Christianity, raising concerns about whether its movement is rooted in a real historical figure or a theological construct that evolved independently of any specific individual.

Paul’s Christ Without a Historical Jesus

Paul’s letters, the earliest Christian writings, present a Jesus who is overwhelmingly mythological and theological; a cosmic Christ, whose death and resurrection define Christian theory. Unlike the Gospel narratives, Paul rarely references the life and teachings of Jesus. Instead, his Christ is the sacrificial atonement, a divine mediator between God and humanity. The implications are significant: if Paul’s Jesus was primarily theological and not based on an earthly figure, does Christianity even need a historical Jesus?

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Paul states:

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve."

This passage, one of the few instances where Paul presents an early Christian creed, does not focus on Jesus’ earthly life or teachings but on his death and resurrection. This emphasis suggests that for Paul, the significance of the Jesus character lay not in his historical actions, but in his theological function. Paul’s Jesus is universal, transcendent, and salvific—not a rabbi or social revolutionary, but a divine intermediary.

The Gospel Jesus: A Narrative Counterbalance?

In contrast, the Gospels somewhat anchor Jesus firmly in Jewish tradition. They depict him as a prophet, a teacher of ethics, and a proclaimer of the philosophy of the Kingdom of God. The Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John interacts with his disciples, debates with religious authorities, and preaches about justice and the inward work of God the Father. His teachings, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, emphasize morality and social ethics in ways that Paul does not.

Given that the Gospels were written after Paul’s letters, were they attempting to correct his vision of the Jesus character? Some within the field argue that the Gospel writers sought to ground the theological Christ in history, providing a biographical framework that Paul had ignored. Others suggest that Paul’s vision was the original, and the Gospel narratives were a later mythologization, an effort to make a cosmic savior more relatable to a broader audience.

Paul’s Theology: A Jewish Evolution or a Radical Departure?

Pamela Eisenbaum, in Paul Was Not a Christian, argues that Paul remained fundamentally Jewish and was not “converting” to a new religion, but rather reinterpreting Jewish messianic expectations in light of his revelations. Paul’s Jesus was not a moral teacher but, according to Paul’s perception, a fulfillment of divine prophecy, a necessary sacrifice for the redemption of humanity.

This perspective further complicates the issue of the historical Jesus. If Paul’s vision was the earliest and most influential, then the Gospel Jesus might be a theological innovation rather than a corrective. That is, Jesus the rabbi and ethical teacher may have been a later narrative construct to appeal to Jewish and Greco-Roman audiences.

Christianity Without a Historical Jesus?

If Paul’s Jesus was primarily a theological concept, can Christianity function without a historical Jesus? Some in the field argue that it already does. Christian faith, as articulated by Paul, depends not on the deeds or words of an earthly Jesus but on belief in his death and resurrection. Paul himself claims that his Gospel was received “through revelation” rather than human tradition, suggesting that historical veracity was secondary to theological truth.

Yet, the absence of a historical Jesus would create existential challenges for Christianity. Without a tangible figure to ground its beliefs, Christianity risks being seen as a philosophical or mythical system rather than a historical faith. The tension between Paul’s cosmic Christ and the Gospel’s Jewish teacher reflects an ongoing struggle within Christian thought: is faith rooted in theological necessity or historical reality?

The Question

The question of whether the historical Jesus even mattered ultimately hinges on what one considers essential to Christian theory. If Christianity is about faith in a figure of salvation, then Paul’s theological Jesus is sufficient. If Christianity seeks historical legitimacy, then the imagined narrative of the Gospel Jesus becomes indispensable for a mythological historical framework (I realize that a “mythological historical framework might sound odd, but Greek epic writers, this was literary culture, namely, to make epic appear historical). The divergence between Paul’s letters and the Gospel narratives suggests that early Christianity was simply a lively and evolving belief system—one that continues to have a losing battle with the balance between history and theology.

 References:

Bedard, S. J., J. (n.d.). Paul And The Historical Jesus: A Case Study in First Corinthians. In McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry (Vol. 7, pp. 9–22).

Matthew, D. & Pamela Eisenbaum. (2009). PAUL WAS NOT a CHRISTIAN: the original message of a misunderstood apostle. In HarperCollins.

Taylor, N. (2003). Paul and the historical Jesus quest. Neotestamentica, 37(1), 105-126.

Did Paul Teach a Different Doctrine From Jesus?

The question of whether the Paul character, the supposed apostle of the Gentiles, preached a doctrine distinct from that of the Jesus character is intriguing. Did Paul’s emphasis on justification by faith in his Christ’s blood, death, and resurrection diverge from Jesus’ kingdom-centered message? And why does Jesus speak of the “Son of Man” in the third person, while Paul boldly proclaims the return of his Christ? This blog post looks into the philosophical and textual evidence to unravel this mystery.

Jesus’ Call to Action, Not Atonement

We begin with the Jesus character in Matthew 4:17, which says, “From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” His message is clear: the kingdom of God—a sort of (on the surface) contextual experience—is imminent. Jesus’ teachings, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), emphasize ethical living, philosophical Torah observance, and preparation for this “experience.” Jesus positions himself as a revolutionary teacher of Jews’ religion, philosophically approaching it from an angle geared more towards an inward experience above ultimately obedience to religious law.

The “kingdom of heaven” was the main philosophical point of the Jesus character. His parables—like the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) or the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32)—illustrate a relational ethic rooted in love and justice, not a theology of atonement through his death. Interestingly enough, Jesus never speaks of salvation through his blood or resurrection. Instead, he calls his hearers to observe the path his philosophy has carved out for him: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up the cross, and follow me,” (Luke 9:23).

Additionally, a curious detail emerges in the language of the Jesus character: he frequently refers to the “Son of Man” in the third person. In Matthew 24:30, he declares, “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven...they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” This figure, ultimately drawn from Daniel 7:13,14 and inspired from the book of Enoch, is a figurative agent of their Deity’s judgment, yet Jesus never explicitly claims, “I will return.” It is very evident that the focus of the Jesus character wasn’t on himself, but on a message transcending himself, which is why he is scripted as saying, “…the kingdom of God is within you,” (Luke 17:21).

Paul’s Christ-Centered Gospel

Contrast this with Paul, whose letters form the backbone of Christian theory. In 1 Corinthians 15:3,4, Paul defines his gospel: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.” Here, salvation hinges on faith in his Christ’s death and resurrection—a doctrine absent from Jesus’ “recorded teachings.”

Paul’s emphasis on justification by faith is unmistakable. In Romans 3:25 he writes, “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past.” This concept—atonement through his Christ’s sacrifice—marks a seismic shift from the Jesus character’s kingdom philosophy. Paul seems to have a more intimate connection to the Jesus character’s death and resurrection than the Jesus character himself. For Paul, his Jesus’ death and resurrection are not mere events, but the entirety of salvation.

Moreover, Paul personalizes his Christ’s return. In 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, he states, “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout… and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” Unlike Jesus’ detached “Son of Man,” Paul’s Christ is the Lord who returns to rescue believers. Wilson (2014) argues, “Paul conceived of the Christ as a cosmic dying-rising savior, not as a political messiah come to reestablish the Davidic throne” (p. 5). This theological leap—from earthly kingdom to cosmic redemption—suggests a doctrine fundamentally distinct from the gospel’s vision of the Jesus character.

The Son of Man vs. The Returning Christ

The divergence in how Jesus and Paul frame the future is profound. The Jesus character’s “Son of Man” is a mysterious, third-person figure ushering in the “kingdom of Israel’s Deity.” In Mark 13:26 he says, “And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.” There is, in this text, a suggestion that these words align with Jewish eschatology, where the figurative Son of Man acts as their God’s agent, not necessarily being Jesus himself. Philosophically, there is no question that the Jesus character understood that he was not scheduled to return ever again, and yet, Paul’s Christ tells a different story.

Paul, however, collapses this ambiguity. His Christ is unequivocally a Jesus, returning personally to redeem the faithful and to kill the wicked. In Philippians 3:20-21, Paul writes, “For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” This personalization—his Christ as the returning savior—contrasts sharply with Jesus’ reticence. Wilson (2014) contends, “Paul’s focus was solely on a ‘post-death Jesus’ whom he typically calls ‘Christ’” (p. 35), highlighting a shift from Jesus’ kingdom-now to Paul’s salvation-later.

Justification by Faith: Paul’s Innovation, Not Jesus’ Teaching

Perhaps the greatest difference between the character Paul and the Jesus character lies in the theory of justification by faith. Paul’s doctrine—salvation through belief in his Christ’s atoning death—dominates his letters. In Galatians 2:16, he asserts, “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.” This rejection of Torah observance for salvation is radical, especially given the supposed affirmation of the law by one of the versions of the Jesus characters (Matthew 5:17-18).

Jesus, conversely, ties righteousness to action within the “kingdom” framework. In Matthew 7:21, he declares, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Beare (1959) notes, “The ethic of Jesus is fundamentally a religious ethic, wholly based upon a right relationship with God” (p. 83)—a relationship forged through the cultivation of wisdom and obedience to that wisdom, not faith in a sacrificial death. Wilson (2014) drives this home: “If we only had Paul, we’d know nothing of the great parables of the Kingdom, the Lord’s Prayer or the Sermon on the Mount” (p. 3). Jesus’ silence on atonement suggests either Paul crafted a new lens, one absent from the Galilean’s message, or that the gospels, which came after Paul, greatly deviated from the original concept of the Jesus character.

Reconciling the Divide

Can these differences be harmonized? McKnight (2010) proposes a unifying thread: the gospel as the story of Jesus. He argues, “The gospel is first and foremost about Jesus… Both ‘gospeled’ the same gospel because both told the story of Jesus” (p. 5). For McKnight, Jesus’ kingdom and Paul’s justification converge in a theoretical Christology—the person of Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s story.

Yet, this synthesis does not hold under strict philosophical scrutiny. Beare (1959) cautions, “Paul’s gospel is different… It is in fact a gospel about Jesus” (p. 82), distinct from the Jesus character’s own preaching. Wilson (2014) goes further, positing two religions: “Paul’s Christ Movement does not originate in the message of Jesus, nor does it represent an offshoot of the early Jesus Movement. It was, in its time, a separate religious enterprise” (p. 16). The philosophical tension is clear: the Jesus character offers a mental experience rooted in the underlying philosophy of the scriptures, while Paul constructs a future salvation anchored in a Greco-Roman savior archetype.

A Tale of Two Gospels?

So, did Paul teach a doctrine separate from the Jesus character? The evidence—textual, historical, and philosophical—leans toward yes. Jesus’ “kingdom of God,” with its ethical urgency and third-person Son of Man, contrasts with Paul’s justification by faith through a returning “Christ” whose blood and resurrection supernaturally does something phenomenal. While the Jesus character never hints at personal atonement or a second coming, Paul strangely builds his theology around these pillars. And so as readers, we’re left to ponder: Why is there such a divide between the gospel Jesus and the Paul Jesus? Are these complementary visions or irreconcilable theories? It may do us well to remember that the gospels were written 20+ years after the Paul character’s doctrine. Bearing this in mind, is it that Paul’s conception is different from the gospel Jesus, or that the Jesus character of the gospels ultimately diverges from Paul’s Christ?

 

References

Beare, F. W. (1959). Jesus and Paul. Canadian Journal of Theology, 5, 79-86.

McKnight, S. (2010). Jesus vs. Paul. Christianity today, 54(12), 24-29.

Wilson, B. (2014). Paul vs. Jesus.

Did Adam’s Sin Bring Death? Rethinking Paul’s Theology vs. the Hebrew Bible

The Bible presents a deep and complex dialogue about sin, consequences, and spiritual death. Romans 6:23 states, "For the wages of sin is death..." while Genesis 2:17 declares, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." A glaring philosophical issue emerges when we compare these verses: Adam and Eve did not physically die upon eating the fruit, challenging the straightforward notion that “sin” results in immediate physical death or “eternal death.” Instead, their "death" appears to be a death of understanding, aligning with Isaiah 44:18, "...he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand." The “opening of their eyes” was in fact the “closing of their eyes.”

The Nature of Death in Eden

If Adam and Eve’s death was not a physical cessation of life, then what kind of death did they suffer? The text suggests an intellectual and spiritual demise—a blindness of mind and heart. Their eyes were opened (Genesis 3:7), but rather than gaining enlightenment, they perceived their own nakedness (figurative) and felt shame (philosophical). This aligns with Isaiah 44:18, which describes a condition where people are rendered incapable of understanding due to their spiritual impairment.

This interpretation raises a significant challenge to Paul’s assertion in Romans 6:23. If the wages of sin were strictly death, and especially the death of some aspect of self in some weird extraterrestrial “afterlife,” as Paul asserts, then the immediate consequence in Eden should have been death to all aspects of the pair in Eden, which “death” the text does not mention because that is not the mindset behind it. Yet, Adam lived for 930 years (Genesis 5:5). The logical dissonance between Paul’s assertion and the Bible’s narrative suggests that Paul was propagating a prospective theological theory that diverges from the Bible’s original philosophy and account.

Paul’s Theological Deviation from the Hebrew Bible

Ezekiel 18:20 states, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." This passage directly refutes the concept of inherited sin and collective guilt. If Adam and Eve's transgression resulted in spiritual blindness rather than immediate death, then Paul's doctrine of sin leading to universal death appears to be a theological extrapolation rather than a point stating or continuing the Bible’s philosophy.

Paul’s framing of sin and death seems to pivot towards a transactional model of atonement rather than the Hebrew Bible’s focus on personal accountability. Ezekiel makes it clear that one person’s sin does not transfer to another, yet Paul argues for a universal condemnation through Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12). This universal condemnation is nowhere found within the text from Genesis to Malachi. This raises the question: Was Paul redefining biblical justice to fit his theological framework?

The Implications of Paul’s Perspective

Paul’s teaching in Romans shapes much of Christian theory, particularly regarding its perspective on salvation and the necessity of its Christ’s sacrifice. However, if the Bible itself does not establish death as an automatic consequence of sin (whether immediately occurring in the here and now or occurring later beyond the here and now) in the way Paul presents it, then his argument may be built on a theological innovation rather than biblical continuity.

If sin led to intellectual death (and it only did) in Eden rather than physical death, Paul’s statement in Romans 6:23 must be understood either metaphorically or theoretically rather than actually or literally. This perspective fundamentally alters the way the Bible philosophically defines atonement and devotional justice. If the fate of Adam and Eve was a loss of spiritual clarity rather than biological termination (and it was), then Paul’s doctrine of inherited sin and universal condemnation, because it is contrary to the Bible’s narrative and philosophical scope, requires re-examination.

A Divergence

The juxtaposition of Genesis 2:17, Isaiah 44:18, and Ezekiel 18 with Paul’s Romans 6:23 highlights a significant philosophical divergence. While Genesis and Ezekiel emphasize personal responsibility and the consequences of error as a loss of understanding, Paul constructs a universalized doctrine of sin and death that deviates from the Hebrew Bible’s narrative. This raises serious questions: Was Paul reshaping theology to fit a new religious framework? And if so, what are the implications for contemporary Christian thought?

A logical inquiry into Paul’s belief shows that his theology presents a deviation from the biblical text rather than a direct continuation of its teachings. The philosophical issue, then, is whether modern Christian theology should align with Paul’s doctrine, or return to the original biblical perspective on sin and its consequences.