The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Do you believe Jesus existed?

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)

1 member likes this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hector on October 5, 2009 at 7:49pm

E. doesn't even matter a hoot if he did. :-D

In all seriousness, there might have been someone who did some preaching around the region and then after a few decades had passed, tall tales led to a story that was embellished so much that a fictional character was created from a boatload of traits and thus why we see many parallels with previous myth characters of before.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on October 5, 2009 at 9:18pm

I don't mean to rock the boat, and I do apologize, but I just got here and I'm not seeing a whole lot of enlightenment.

You did just get here and that's sounds pretty arrogant. There's probably a less offensive way to say it. I do happen to agree with you and several others have made comments similar to yours. I think you're asking "Why be dogmatic? Does it really change anything?"

Welcome to A|N, Matheus. We're always looking for a little more enlightenment.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on October 5, 2009 at 11:14pm

I do think my call to attention was deserved.

Agreed.

...complaining about arrogance does take one away from discussing the argument at hands.

It was no complaint. It was just an observation. You're very correct in saying that it has no bearing on the value of your argument, one that I happen to agree with. I don't think you're arrogant, I think it sounds bad to be new to a group and essentially say "Hello, glad to be here, I'm astounded by how stupid so many of you are". Perhaps something got lost in translation.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aaron S. (USA) on October 7, 2009 at 12:21am

One of the things that bothers me here, though, is that most Biblical scholars are also Christian. From what I've heard, the less-devout ones are that much less likely to believe in an historical Jesus. It just seems a little bit too much like the Mormons and their Native American "archaeology"; clearly there's a conflict of interest there.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Miller on October 7, 2009 at 2:59pm

I've just joined this group and have been skim reading the posts. So if I'm repeating someone else, apologies.
The Jesus Myth theory, whilst relatively new and still highly controversial, is gaining credence in wider academic circles. However, the overwhelming mass of academics working in biblical studies are, to some extent at least believers. There is limited enthusiasm within this group to seriously examine the historicity of Jesus. There are some exceptions, most notably Robert M. Price (check his website)
Personally I am agnostic about the existence of an historical Jesus (that should have been an option E). Messianic figures, wandering apocalyptic prophets etc. were not uncommon in the Hellenistic/Roman world of the period. There very well could have been a Jesus figure who perhaps said some of things we attribute to him today. But then again, perhaps not. However, if he did exist, any actual history relating to him has long since been irrevocably lost to us. Jesus (if he existed) bears no relation to the familiar figure in the new testament.
The gospels are not, and were never intended to be biographies of an historical figure (especially John). For well over 3 centuries only a minority of christians believed Jesus was god in human form who died a physical death on a cross in Jerusalem. Many, for example, (including I think St. Paul) believed that Jesus Christ has died and risen in one of the lower realms of heaven at the hands of the Arcons before the creation of the world by the Demiurge Jehovah. The gradual 'orthodoxing' of Christianity comes later and only after Constantine adopts its as the state religion of the crumbling roman empire does it become predominant
In terms of historical evidence (the bible is not history and is not written as such) there is really no evidence at all for Jesus' existence. The famous Josephus reference is almost universally accepted as a fraud. The others are either way too late to be treated as history, or make only reference to Christians.
Traditionally the church has dated the gospels very early, without any real historical justification for doing so. However, it does allow some christians to make the wholly unjustifiable claim of 'eye-witness' testimonies. This does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny at all. Personally I think Mark (the earliest of the gospels) probably dates to around 90 - 100 CE. John at maybe 150-160CE, or later.
We will never know if there was a real Jesus. We also should be similarly careful as accepting as real historical figures others for whom we have very little evidence, both biblical and non-biblical (e.g Pythagorus). I think Michael Grant has got his reasoning upside down on this

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on October 8, 2009 at 7:27pm

So now you're more like an E?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on December 22, 2009 at 2:06pm

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by eviltwit on October 5, 2009 at 9:46pm

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Larry Smith on October 6, 2009 at 12:19am

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on October 6, 2009 at 8:32am

Why did miracles stop when science started?

That's one of the major questions at the heart of the debate.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris on October 6, 2009 at 9:43am

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nate on October 6, 2009 at 10:32am

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?