Let me start out by saying that I think the answer to that question is no – but this requires lots of clarification. This was, however, the discussion here, while although poorly informed, does raise some interesting questions. This is a Tik Tok video of a popular podcast which is mainly personalities chatting. The host, Logan, asks the question of whether or not it is possible that Jesus was essentially a con artist – a charismatic speaker who essentially started a cult of personality, and may or may not have believed his own rhetoric about being the son of God.

I think the question touches on something interesting, although historical context is critical. As I have discussed before, I think the evidence for a historical Jesus is thin. In the end, it doesn’t really matter because what is clear is that the mythology of Jesus evolved in a typical way involving all the elements known to fuel such mythologies. There were many stories of Jesus which are mutually exclusive, involving wildly different archetypes and story details. The themes followed the mythology themes that were already prominent in that time and place. The story evolved in a pattern of obvious embellishment. Eventually a canon was imposed from the top down, and all other versions became heresy and actively destroyed. What is left is almost entirely mythology, and the question of whether or not the life of a real person is in the mix is mostly irrelevant (from a historical point of view).

Unfortunately this renders the Logan conversation mostly irrelevant also, one giant non sequitur. Everyone in the conversation assumes that the details in the New Testament are historically accurate (if not the interpretation of those details), but that assumption is not justified. So the conversation takes the form of – could those details be the result of a charismatic con artist, or do they require an actual son of God.

For example, at one point, responding to the question, one person asks – has Trump ever walked on water? The point is that modern cult-like followings are not an adequate analogy to Jesus, because Jesus performed actual miracles. Another person raises the point (one which I have heard often before) that the disciples all faced persecution and death for their beliefs, and they would not have done so their belief was not genuine and intense. The unstated major premise here is that such belief can only come from a genuine Jesus.

The same person also argues no eyewitness to Jesus ever recanted. First, we do not have any direct eye witness accounts of Jesus. Paul, who wrote earliest about Jesus, never met him and only allegedly saw him 25 years after his death in visions (keep that in mind – the ultimate source of Christian belief is visions). The earliest gospels were written about 40 years after the death of Jesus. The writings that we have were all written by the faithful, to tell a story of faith, so why would they include accounts of recants. Any disagreement was purged as heresy. We don’t even know who wrote the gospels. They were authored anonymously and only later attributed to characters in the story.

I also found it interesting that the point was raised that there were a hundred such prophets walking around the middle east at the time claiming to be the son of god, and yet only one spawned a world religion. I actually think this point works against the claim of authenticity for Jesus. That’s right – there were lots of messiahs and prophets at the time. The concept of a messiah, a person with some kind of divinity, with a special message for humanity, who must make a personal sacrifice in order to save us, was the standard myth of the time. Why would we think that, by an amazing coincidence, one of these people was an actual messiah while the rest were fake?

The fact that one messiah myth emerged and persisted is not surprising. This is partly due to the notion that some messiah myth had to win and fill that mythology niche. It’s also possible that the Jesus myth that emerged contains elements of many of the false messiahs – any stories about any messiah that resonated could survive and would likely become attached to the most famous messiah story. Eventually Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of Rome, and that is the primary reason why it is a world religion today. Essentially, one version of the messiah myth emerged, mainly through luck and happenstance. This doesn’t mean that it has to be the one real messiah.

I am approaching this question from a neutral historical perspective, one not relying on faith. As a historical question, there is still some discussion about whether there is an element of historicity to the Jesus myth. But there is no debate about whether or not the story is a myth – it is. It emerged out of the mythology of that time and place, it evolved like a myth, and all of the references to Jesus either emerge from the early religious tradition itself or are a reference to that religious tradition (yes, even Josephus – he was not giving any first hand account, just referring to Christian belief).

But there is still an element of legitimacy to Logan’s question – it is very likely that many of the messiahs who were walking around at that time were charismatic cult leaders. We see this today, and we can see how such leaders can create new religions (Mormonism, Scientology). The process of creating mythology and mythology evolving into religion is not mysterious, but rather is well documented.