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: 2136

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

So now you're more like an E?
4.
From what I've read over the years, I've come to the conclusion that that Jesus is a myth. I'm also in the circle of not caring anymore. In other words, even if archaeologists and historians had proof that he was a living, breathing person (whether or not he was the son of the god of Christianity or whatever), I would not give a flying spaghetti monster.
Jesus the man did exist, as did Mohammed and an individual who came to be known as Buddha. Their messages were "enhanced" and perverted by their followers seeking earthly powers, especially Christ's.
Why did miracles stop when science started?

That's one of the major questions at the heart of the debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du5wJWlHAVI" target="_blank">

From what I gather, C seems to be the most believable. The other school of thought is there was a person named Jesus, who was a Jew. However, if he did live, he was a Jew and believed in Jewish law. He would not have had any ties to christianity. Either way, the stories of the bible are nothing but stories.
The other school of thought is there was a person named Jesus, who was a Jew. However, if he did live, he was a Jew and believed in Jewish law.

Isn't this the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels?
I have come to believe as others, that Jesus was an amalgamation of several so called messiahs. Stories mashed together and manipulated….or outright fabricated by Saul/Paul to propagate "his" new religion.
Partway between A and B.
A man named Jesus probably, although not definitely, existed. The claims about him are, for the most part, false and/or exaggerated. He did nothing supernatural, but he likely did perform some parlour tricks of some kind and likely did do some wandering ministry work. Again, assuming he existed, he was the iconic faith healer, popcorn philosophy combined with simplistic prestidigitation to dupe the masses. Later, important figures in the church like Paul used his name and reputation to establish a church.
I go with C. There isn't a single verifiable fact about him. That seems a bit odd since he's suppose to be one of the most significant figures in history. It doesn't help that the earliest sources of his "life" were written by devoted believers or that the sources (4 Gospels and Letters of Paul) don't agree on anything about the guy.
Considering how hard it is to research census studies done two thousand years ago, this discussion is based almost entirely on conjecture.

However, the film Zeitgeist proposes the most convincing argument for the Jesus legend that I've ever heard. For those that haven't seen it, the basic assumption is this: Jesus was an amalgamation of dozens of other prophet legends that are themselves based on the pagan understanding of the seasons. During the winter solstice (around Jesus' supposed birthday) the sun reaches its lowest point on the horizon and three days later begins its ascent back into the sky. Sound familiar?

For thousands of years humans relied on this information to calculate when the winter would leave and the warmth would return, so it has been a part of our species' heritage stretching back far beyond the age of the Bible. Though I can't support all of the assumptions in the film, the first third (dealing with the Jesus myth) is absolutely fascinating! Even if certain details are wrong, the overall point is far more believable than anything people have suggested so far. I highly recommend it to anyone reading this right now.
I find the whole issue of Jesus’ alleged birth to be particularly interesting.
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.(Luke1.26,27)
And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the CITY of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David:
(Luke 2.3,4)

The story is nonsense on several levels, first there is no record that the city of Nazareth existed before the 2nd century CE. This assumption may have been made with the reference "Jesus the Nazarene" - the Nazarenes were an offshoot sect of the Essenes. Next is the fact that Galilee was not a Roman province and would have no reason to respond to a Roman census. And finally, there is no record of Augustus or any emperor conducting a census (the Romans taxed property not individuals). So except for those minor issues the story seems acceptable to the deluded.

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