His name would have been Yeshua (short form of Yehoshua), with the name translated first into Greek then into Latin and morphing into a form that became Jesus. Yeshua was also a common name. It’s actually more complex than that, as language and words over time get very mangled.
As for evidence of a singular guy of any name doing this stuff, there isn’t much at all that isn’t connected to the Bible in a circular reasoning. Without Saul/Paul renewing (or creating) a faith about someone long gone in his lifetime, it would have likely ended there. There could have been many iconic figures doing things with followers that didn’t jump the gap of history to become a permanent religion.
Was there an itinerant preacher on which the biblical character of Jesus was loosely based on? Almost certainly. Does that make the stories of Jesus as depicted in the gospels 100% true? Absolutely not.
His name would have been Yeshua (short form of Yehoshua), with the name translated first into Greek then into Latin and morphing into a form that became Jesus. Yeshua was also a common name. It’s actually more complex than that, as language and words over time get very mangled.
As for evidence of a singular guy of any name doing this stuff, there isn’t much at all that isn’t connected to the Bible in a circular reasoning. Without Saul/Paul renewing (or creating) a faith about someone long gone in his lifetime, it would have likely ended there. There could have been many iconic figures doing things with followers that didn’t jump the gap of history to become a permanent religion.
Was there an itinerant preacher on which the biblical character of Jesus was loosely based on? Almost certainly. Does that make the stories of Jesus as depicted in the gospels 100% true? Absolutely not.
Was Paul an absolute shit bag? Almost certainly so.
The modern form of Yeshua is Joshua.
Christianity should be called Paulinism, because he saw an opportunity, like any good politician, and took advantage of it.