Apparently you can't do polls on here.... but

Do any of you think that Jesus actually existed? What do category do you fall into?

A. Believed he existed, claims are false

B. Believed he existed, claims are exaggerated

C. Don't believe he existed

D. Believe he existed, claims are true (sorry had to leave the idiot category open)

Views: 2150

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

So the reference to "Christians" could refer to the followers of more than one messianic figure.

We should also keep in mind that "Jesus" wasn't the only person Pilate ever crucified. In fact, he was recalled to Rome for, well, overdoing it.
"There is NO logical reason why this Christus was NOT Jesus. That is what I'm saying."

Agreed. But I still maintain the evidence for him being one and the same is weak, at best. There were many Messiahs/Christs around at that time. In my mind it is more than possible that the New Testament Christ was a composite of these coupled with a whole lot of other baggage added from contemporaneous religions in the Middle East.

You, and others, keep repeating the notion that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. My recollection is that he makes no such claim in the Gospels; the claim is made by his followers.

Can someone provide chapter and verse of instances where Jesus claimed to be the Jewish Messiah/Christ?
"There is NO logical reason why this Christus was NOT Jesus."

There's also no logical reason for thinking that Tacitus was doing anything but recounting the Christian's tales of Jesus, so therefore there's no logical reason to think Tacitus was referencing an actual person a full century after this person's supposed death any more than thinking someone referencing Mormon dogma today is evidence for anything in the Book of Mormon.
Having fallen way behind on my Atheist Nexus threads...I'm with Rosemary on this one.

- The Tacitus writings: Given that Christ is a title, not a name. Given that the Pauline letters and a plethora of other inspired Christian writings were around at the time, Tacitus may well have been recording what he thought was a real history and still could easily have gotten it wrong on that basis. Case in point; I used to be a tour guide in Sedona AZ where one of the prime tourist attractions is the Chapel of the Holy Cross, designed by famed architect Frank Lloyd Wright. Except that it wasn't designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. In less than 50 years, his name got attached to some else's work. In the information age. During the lifetimes of people who were there when it was built. Just an illustration of how easy it is for a legend to work its way into 'history.'

- Tacitus' writings also do not prove the non-existence of Jesus. All but impossible to prove a negative. Just that as historical evidence goes, it's a very long stretch with lots of leaps of ... forgive the term ... faith.

- If such a person existed and if he was someone of extraordinary talent, teachings, popularity with the masses, we would expect to see a whole lot more third party, secular references, including from when he lived.

- All that said, Yeshu/Yeshua/Yeshuara being a common name, I'd bet any amount of money that somewhere in the right time period there was someone of that named executed for heresy. It's like saying "John from Ohio was jailed for armed robbery in 1987." No doubt. Common name, common crime.

- My armchair historian's conclusion part I: Based on how this particular name took hold and how fast, talented a snake oil salesman as Saul of Tarsus was, I doubt he did it alone. I believe there was at least one person (**or more likely a few people**) around that time period that gave rise to the legend that "John from Ohio! Jesus! He must be the Messiah we're looking so hard for!" (**As myths take hold, it's common for several people of the same name to get lumped together as one. Or one person's name stands out so any words/deeds of significance get attributed to that one person).

- My armchair historian conclusion part II: Given the wildly conspicuous lack of any significant historical mention, this person or persons hardly made any kind of splash in their lifetimes other than with just enough core followers for the legend to take hold. Any tiny grain of what this person/persons were really like in real life is completely lost to mythology, nearly all of which is copied from existing mythologies of other gods. If there was a historical Jesus, the ONLY thing he/they contributed to the story was a first name. Nothing else.

- "Someone" on this thread needs a serious "Time Out" during which they need to "Grow up" beyond the 5th grade.
Kid:

"Sorry I can't reply as below. Tacitus did not report hearsay, but actual events. I did NOT SAY that Tacitus was a witness to Jesus, only his FOLLOWERS"

Which doesn't provide evidence for the historical Jesus in any case. You are implying that somehow Tacitus reporting on contemporary Christians kinda somehow indicates there was a historical Jesus, which doesn't follow.

Sorry, it just doesn't.

"You are a real charming individual, aren't you, Mykeru? Why do you find it necessary to resort to personal insults on a discussion about the real or not Jesus?"

My apologies, but when you rant that people aren't accepting your poorly argued non-sequiter argument only because their "applecart" might be upset, which is an accusation of recalcitrance and intellectual cowardice, you are making a far worse "personal insult".

Douche-nozzle
@Byron Baugher
Thanks for the link to the Horus vs Jeshua stuff. Very interesting.
Robert Price and other scholars involved in critical research into the existence of the historical Jesus seem to suggest that there may have been a wandering preacher who went by that name but their is no evidence that exists that proves the theistic claim that this man was the son of the christian god. During the Bronze Age the times were rife with religious superstition and these itinerant holy men were common throughout the land however none of this proves humans engaged in acts that contradict the laws of physics. So, is it possible a man named Jesus lived? probably, is their evidence he was the son of God? no.
Excellent points gerard26!
I am with the "E" - does not really matter crowd -
meaning it does not really matter to me personally.
As you say there were lots of wandering preachers at the time, and loads of "Horus" figures in popular tales /myths / beliefs, but none of this has any bearing on my life.
It's all just a fairy tale to explain what then was unexplained.
I believe the trolls get found out and removed quickly.
I believe in the guy named Jesus who went to my highschool - he played football - there is empirical evidence! ;)
Wasn't the time of Jesus the iron age, not the Bronze age?
Whenever I see a discussion on the historicity of Jesus, it's that obvious, thundering bait-and-switch that I find so irritating: When some apologist or fellow traveler seems to think establishing the historicity of someone who might have been the basis for Jesus ( a "big deal" ordinary claim) establishes the existence of the Gospel Jesus (an extra-ordinary claim). It's like the apologists who seem to think a archeological dig that might be Jericho establishes that its walls got bugled down. That has all the credence of claiming that because Spider-Man is set in New York, and there is a New York, that Spider-Man must exist.
That has all the credence of claiming that because Spider-Man is set in New York, and there is a New York, that Spider-Man must exist.

Hmm, sounds like Atheist Experience examples to me...

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service