Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[joelr]

=

a smiley face is Not an answer at all. I gave sources of Romulus, mentions by many historians, Roman and Greek, it's clearly a 3rd century BCE work by all the evidence. Also it's Rome's founding myth and they are far older than Christianity. They are fully established in the NT.
The Romulus story is clearly one of the sources for composing the Jesus tale. Mark was using many sources.

like Psalms;
Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”


Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”


Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”


Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”


Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”


Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”


On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason.





Plutarch writes of the Romulus story in

Life of Romulus

hat:

• He was the son of god.
• He was born of a virgin.
• An attempt was made to kill him as a baby (and he was saved).
• He was raised by a poor family.
• He became a lowly shepherd.
• As a man he becomes loved by the people, and hailed as king.
• He is killed by the conniving elite.
• He rises from the dead.
• He appears to a friend to tell the good news to his people.
• He ascends to heaven to rule from on high.

Plutarch also mentions that as he wrote this, there were still annual public ceremonies being performed, celebrating the day Romulus ascended up to heaven. The sacred story that was told at such ceremonies was described as such: at the end of Romulus’ life, there were rumors circulating that he had been murdered by a conspiracy of the Senate (much like how Jesus was “murdered”, in a sense, by a conspiracy of the Jewish Sanhedrin), the sun went dark (just as was the case with Jesus), and Romulus’ body vanished (as did Jesus’). The people wanted to look for Romulus, but the Senate instructed them not to, “for he had risen to join the gods”. Most went away in happiness, wishing for only good things from their new god, but “some doubted” (as is mentioned in all the Gospels after Mark; e.g. Matt. 28.17, Luke 24.11, John 20.24-25, though it is implied in Mark 16.8). Soon after all this, a close friend of Romulus named Proculus, reported that he met Romulus “on the road” between Rome and some nearby town and he asked Romulus, “Why have you abandoned us?”, which Romulus then replied and said that he had been a god all along but had come down to earth and taken human form in order to establish a great kingdom, and that he now had to return to his home in heaven. Then Romulus instructs Proculus to tell the Romans that if they are indeed virtuous, they will possess all worldly power. Plutarch then mentions that this annual Roman ceremony of the Romulan ascent involved some people reciting the names of those who fled vanishing in fear, while some people re-enacted the scene of being afraid and fleeing (sharing many similarities to the ending of Mark’s Gospel).

Clearly, there are numerous parallels between the story of Romulus and the stories of Jesus we hear about in the Gospels. Most importantly, this tale of Romulus is widely attested as being pre-Christian. Although Plutarch wrote this biography sometime between 80 and 120 CE (during the time the Gospels were being written), he was recording a long-established Roman tale and custom, and this has been proven by noting that the sources Plutarch used for his fictional biography were undeniably pre-Christian (including: Cicero, Laws 1.3, Republic 2.10; Livy, From the Founding of the City 1.16-2.8; Ovid, Fasti 2.491-512 and Metamorphoses 14.805-51; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2.63.3; which were all written prior to the Gospels). Beyond the parallels noted here, in terms of the origins of Christianity and the various influences on its origin, it should also be noted that within several different cultures there were in fact a number of pre-Christian savior gods who took on human form and endured various trials, passions, and tribulations, with many of them even dying and later resurrecting from the dead (e.g. Osiris, Zalmoxis, Dionysus, Inanna) and sharing their victory over death with those that believed in them and/or those that took part in various mysteries (including baptisms and pseudo-cannabalistic rites similar to the Eucharist). One last thing to note regarding these other savior gods is that even though they all were placed into history, with many even having detailed biographies written about them, we can be fairly certain that none of them actually existed.

 

[marriedmanoffaith]

a smiley face is Not an answer at all. I gave sources of Romulus, mentions by many historians, Roman and Greek, it's clearly a 3rd century BCE work by all the evidence. Also it's Rome's founding myth and they are far older than Christianity. They are fully established in the NT.
The Romulus story is clearly one of the sources for composing the Jesus tale. Mark was using many sources.

like Psalms;
Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”


Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”


Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”


Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”


Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”


Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”


On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason.





Plutarch writes of the Romulus story in

Life of Romulus

hat:

• He was the son of god.
• He was born of a virgin.
• An attempt was made to kill him as a baby (and he was saved).
• He was raised by a poor family.
• He became a lowly shepherd.
• As a man he becomes loved by the people, and hailed as king.
• He is killed by the conniving elite.
• He rises from the dead.
• He appears to a friend to tell the good news to his people.
• He ascends to heaven to rule from on high.

Plutarch also mentions that as he wrote this, there were still annual public ceremonies being performed, celebrating the day Romulus ascended up to heaven. The sacred story that was told at such ceremonies was described as such: at the end of Romulus’ life, there were rumors circulating that he had been murdered by a conspiracy of the Senate (much like how Jesus was “murdered”, in a sense, by a conspiracy of the Jewish Sanhedrin), the sun went dark (just as was the case with Jesus), and Romulus’ body vanished (as did Jesus’). The people wanted to look for Romulus, but the Senate instructed them not to, “for he had risen to join the gods”. Most went away in happiness, wishing for only good things from their new god, but “some doubted” (as is mentioned in all the Gospels after Mark; e.g. Matt. 28.17, Luke 24.11, John 20.24-25, though it is implied in Mark 16.8). Soon after all this, a close friend of Romulus named Proculus, reported that he met Romulus “on the road” between Rome and some nearby town and he asked Romulus, “Why have you abandoned us?”, which Romulus then replied and said that he had been a god all along but had come down to earth and taken human form in order to establish a great kingdom, and that he now had to return to his home in heaven. Then Romulus instructs Proculus to tell the Romans that if they are indeed virtuous, they will possess all worldly power. Plutarch then mentions that this annual Roman ceremony of the Romulan ascent involved some people reciting the names of those who fled vanishing in fear, while some people re-enacted the scene of being afraid and fleeing (sharing many similarities to the ending of Mark’s Gospel).

Clearly, there are numerous parallels between the story of Romulus and the stories of Jesus we hear about in the Gospels. Most importantly, this tale of Romulus is widely attested as being pre-Christian. Although Plutarch wrote this biography sometime between 80 and 120 CE (during the time the Gospels were being written), he was recording a long-established Roman tale and custom, and this has been proven by noting that the sources Plutarch used for his fictional biography were undeniably pre-Christian (including: Cicero, Laws 1.3, Republic 2.10; Livy, From the Founding of the City 1.16-2.8; Ovid, Fasti 2.491-512 and Metamorphoses 14.805-51; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2.63.3; which were all written prior to the Gospels). Beyond the parallels noted here, in terms of the origins of Christianity and the various influences on its origin, it should also be noted that within several different cultures there were in fact a number of pre-Christian savior gods who took on human form and endured various trials, passions, and tribulations, with many of them even dying and later resurrecting from the dead (e.g. Osiris, Zalmoxis, Dionysus, Inanna) and sharing their victory over death with those that believed in them and/or those that took part in various mysteries (including baptisms and pseudo-cannabalistic rites similar to the Eucharist). One last thing to note regarding these other savior gods is that even though they all were placed into history, with many even having detailed biographies written about them, we can be fairly certain that none of them actually existed.

Just because there have been resurrection myths in other cultures before, doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist. Lots of evidence that a historical person named Jesus actually existed and lots of evidence of people who were willing to die for the fact that he rose from the dead. So either it happened, or these people believed to ardently that it happened that they were willing to die for it. Most people, when they are BSing, will give up the ruse as soon as their life is in danger

 

[1213]

Just a little common sense here, maybe? Jesus was not held as a heritic for speaking common Jewish wisdom, he was held as a heretic because he claimed to be the Messiah and many Jews did not believe him. At least in the story. In fiction you need more than one protagonist.

Ok, so they didn't speak the same thing then?

But there are theological issues, Judaism doesn't have sons of God.

Judaism doesn't have these?

I said, “You are gods, all of you are sons of the Most High. Nev-ertheless you shall die like men, and fall like one of the rulers.”
Ps. 82:6-7
Now on the day when God’s sons came to present themselves before Yahweh,[a] Satan also came among them.
Job 1:6
When men began to multiply on the surface of the ground, and daughters were born to them, God’s sons saw that men’s daughters were beautiful, and they took any that they wanted for themselves as wives.
Gen. 6:1-2

Hellenism has that. They rejected the stories because they probably knew it was just a trending myth and now a Jewish version emerged.

I believe Greeks copied from Genesis, if someone copied. I don't believe neither of them copied. I believe those ideas were common knowledge and based on what people observed, although they don't have all the detail the same.

But the whole myth of a coming Messiah isn't in the OT until after the Persian occupation. The John Colins videos go over the places we see the direct Persian influence and a coming messiah is one of the ideas they adopted. So even that is just a syncretic myth.

Thanks for your effort, but sorry, I don't believe the claims that Jews copied anything to the Bible.

 

[1213]

...showed Paul to be a Hellenistic fusion of the Mystery cults theology and philosophy.
..

I think one problem with all this is that I think there are two paths of Christianity and Judaism, those that are loyal to Jesus and God and those who are not. I believe lot of what you say fits well to those who are not loyal to God, who are opportunists adopting everything that they think is beneficial to their goals. Luckily we still have also the pure line left, which is not the same as the contaminated path. One example of this is in book of Ezekiel.

She bestowed her prostitution on them, the choicest men of Assyria all of them; and on whoever she doted, with all their idols she defiled herself.
Eze. 23:7

 

[1213]

Plutarch writes of the Romulus story in

And by what Wikipedia says, he lived after Jesus and therefore could have copied those ideas from early Christians.

But, to me the most important thing is what they said, not is it said they are sons of God... ...apparently Romulus said nothing meaningful.

 

[Augustus]

But Carrier and Lataster both have peer-reviewed works that challenge the assumptions.

How do you personally evaluate specialised technical arguments (stylometric arguments, those related to points of grammar in languages you don’t speak, expected genre characteristics of ancient texts, etc) though to decide who is more likely to be correct?

A non-technical reader can’t evaluate these things, they just make heuristic judgements.

How do you judge that a handful of fringe scholars are more likely to be correct based on highly technical arguments?

On any issue the overwhelming majority consensus of scholars of all backgrounds is always far more likely to be correct than a fringe position promoted by those who write polemically and are making arguments that strongly align with their own ideological motivations.

Almost none of the scholars they quote on various points actually agree with their overall thesis that their points make mythicism probable.

A mythical Jesus would be unique in being invented out of thin air within the lifetime of purported followers.

A historical holy person gaining common mythical tropes over time would be unremarkable.

Muhammad almost certainly existed but almost all of his biography may be fabricated from scriptural sources for theological reasons, so Jesus’ biography being influenced by scripture is hardly unexpected.

A real person is more parsimonious and requires less convoluted reasoning.

So heuristically, it seems far leas probable that fringe scholars arguing in accordance with their ideological leanings are correct.

How do you judge the technical aspects to overcome these?

There are over 30 scholars who now say that mythicism is possible after looking into the debate, there is a list here

All potential theories should be taken seriously absent absolute proof which almost never exists in this time period.

It would be remarkable if you couldn’t get 30 scholars on any common topic in ancient history who would acknowledge you need to take all theories seriously rather than dismissing them out of hand.

It’s basic tenet of scholarship.

More pertinently very few of them who take it seriously find it probable.

There is a whole direction of scholarship from the 19th century in Germany

And more recently there has been much scholarly criticism of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, not least the influence of the sectarian Protestant anti-Catholicism common to Germany in that era, and their tendency to over-fit into and reify fuzzy categories.

Now almost all historical scholars saying the Jesus who did/did not exist was not the Gospel Jesus

Obviously. No arguments there.