Questioning the Historicity of Christ

[TRANSPONDER]

There are several authors who debate that Christ was not an historic person.
One book in particular shows the idea of a real person is a fiction.

Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity
by James S Valliant & Warren Fahy 2018
See review at volumesofvalue.com/2022/09/18/creating-christ/

Has anyone else read this and have thoughts on the thesis?

I think there are several factors and an evolution of the story.

The Main riddle is whether there a Jesus t all; i mean a figure recognisably the basis of the gospels figure. The anti is (as a reasonable objection) no mention of Jesus in history apart from Tacitus and he was (demonstrably) saying what Christians claimed, not what he knew. Josephus appears to confirm the baptist, he does not (if one rejects the Flavian testament) mention Jesus (I reckon the James passage in Antiquities relates to a Jesus of a quite different family from Joseph's. but this has been debated here). It is bothersome that Philo doesn't mention Jesus, though he deals with Piilate, but then he doesn't mention the Baptist or the Nazorenes, nor, for that matter, Paul.

The secondary question is whether the gospel story is broadly reliable or not. I think it is again a mix of factors: there is a common story in all four gospels. but many differences and the debate will be about whether the differences are the followers knowing different things or Inventing different things.

The old apologetic (which atheists should drop) about the Gospels borrowing Jesus from Mithras, Tammuz and Egyptian gods is mostly unsound. I am convinced that the Madonna and child icon is borrowed from Isis and Horus, and the Eucharist might be from Greek rites like the Eleusian mysteries. Christianity does borrow from rival religions. Hellthreat is credibly lifted from Zoroastrianism.

That said, a Roman conspiracy to invent Jesus wholesale (e,g borrowing Caesar's life story) seems as likely as a Roman Historian inventing Caesar basing it on the life of Jesus.

[Difflugia]

The linked site is likely an email harvesting scam. The "review" is just the publisher's marketing information and the site promises downloads of commercial books in exchange for merely signing up.

If the book is worth discussing anyway, there's a preview at Google Books, where one can also buy the ebook.

[bjs1]

[JoeyKnothead]

There's never been a confirmed, irrefutable case of a human / God hybrid, much less a viable one of em.

So the probability of Jesus being him one of em is right there with the probability of me ever getting married again.

Now, Paul Bunyon...

[TRANSPONDER]

"Well, this is embarrassing..."

Lads and ladesses, I don't know how a response turned into a new thread, and not even posing a question, as required by Law. Maybe the mods can tidy that one up.

[1213]

...Eucharist might be from Greek rites like the Eleusian mysteries...
...Hellthreat is credibly lifted from Zoroastrianism...

Can you show any evidence for these?

[brunumb]

...Eucharist might be from Greek rites like the Eleusian mysteries...
...Hellthreat is credibly lifted from Zoroastrianism...

Can you show any evidence for these?

Prophecy - all we will get is your stock standard response: "I see no good reason to believe any of it". So, no point.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Eucharist might be from Greek rites like the Eleusian mysteries...
...Hellthreat is credibly lifted from Zoroastrianism...

Can you show any evidence for these?

No, not really. I will not bamboozle you. It is just a suggestion that I have read in some obviously unsympathetic writings on early Christianity. The Mysteries and Mithraic rites were secretive, so any borrowings are speculative. The Eucharist might be original, like John's command to wash feet (which is largely ignored) though I doubt the Gospel origins of the rite. It's just a suggestion that there might have been a similar rite out there at the time and the Christians adapted it. I wouldn't dream of course of using Theist logic wherein I'd say that it's up to you to prove 100% that it wasn't borrowed and if you can't, it stands as a Given.

...Eucharist might be from Greek rites like the Eleusian mysteries...
...Hellthreat is credibly lifted from Zoroastrianism...

Can you show any evidence for these?

Prophecy - all we will get is your stock standard response: "I see no good reason to believe any of it". So, no point.

Yep. But here, it is no more than a feeling that the origin in the Capernaum Synagogue in John and hints of how the concept was a problem for some of the followers OR the synoptic origin a the last Supper (And the theologically required box of the bread and wine originating in Capernaum NOT appearing in the synoptics looks fishier than Capernaum fishmarket itself). We don't get the bread and wine in John's last supper so it looks to me like John had the rite begun in capernaum and the synoptic version at the last supper.

Obviously this links up with Paul who has one of the horribly sparse references to Jesus' doings when alive as brad and wine in memory of Jesus on the night he was 'betrayed' (or 'handed over' rather), and the idea of the Followers assembling at a table to have bread and wine as a memorial of Jesus or even a symbolic eating of his (soon to be sacrificed) body as in John which we don't find in the synoptics, makes me think of a rite borrowed from one of the mystery religions, as some writers propose.

That aside, you can see that I have doubts about the betrayal as in the Bible really being what Paul was saying. I think h meant that God allowed Jesus to be killed by the Romans to break the law of sin -death with obedience to death. I also suspect, rather strongly, that the 'handing over' by God to the Lords of the world, who killed him because they did not know who he was (1) and this was Read as 'betrayal' and who better than one of his own Jewish disciples, who moreover did it for money, it says, thus sealing the fate of European Jews for centuries to come.

This is all hypothetical, based on some questions and discrapancies, and of course, as you say, our pal will never wear it.

(1) ! Cor. 2. 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

which I also suspect originated the addition in Luke (not found anywhere else - another clue that Luke adapted his gospel and wrote Acts because he knew Paul's letters.) about 'Forgive them' (the Romans) for they know not what they do', and of course part of the gospel agenda was to excuse the Romans from killing Jesus and blame the Jews.