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)

Views: 751

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by nick altman on May 3, 2010 at 9:09pm
I would disagree about the only people being biased in this matter being atheists. The majority of Christians I know have no idea what the evidence is for the reality of a historical Jesus, I was raised a Christian in a very fundamentalist family, and I live in Oklahoma City.
It wasn't until you shared with me some of the evidence Matt that I finally learned what this evidence was, all too often the Christians I know only heard that there was some sort of evidence out there, without knowing the evidence to cite. I am almost 30 and it took this long to learn about when I've been asking about it my whole life. But I never took the time to go out and research it, of course, which I could have done more about. But my point is, not many who follow the religion do. So it may as well be without any historical basis for majority of Christians that I know. Not much of a point to make, but I felt it needed to be pointed out.
Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on May 4, 2010 at 6:41am
Sure. I know there's a lot of misinformation out there and most Christians (or atheists) honestly don't know either how history works or how we can know almost for certain that Jesus at least existed.
But as far as I can tell, the Christians are at least being sort of consistent here: sure, they might not know exactly what evidence there is for Jesus, but then again they might not know the evidence for Hannibal. They still believe in both though, which at least makes it consistent, if based (as often) on ignorance.

But the bias comes in when I see atheists who happily accept the existence of Hannibal or Theudas or Boudicca, but will then turn around and start demanding evidence for the existence of Jesus of the kind that they would not ask for in the case of Theudas, coming up with elaborate conspiracy theories and what-if-scenarios to justify why he might not have existed. But they would never go through the trouble of doing the same for Hannibal. This is irrationality at work (although to its credit, the Nexus is one of the few places where the Jesus Mythicism hasn't gotten off the ground).
I'm happy to share what I know about that subject with those who are willing to objectively analyse the evidence, but all too often I find that the only ones clinging to the non-existence of Jesus as some kind of article of faith are my fellow atheists. Which is very, very sad.
Permalink Reply by boris urshugur on May 4, 2010 at 11:13am
more like an article of skepticism. warlords, rulers, etc. these have precedent to make ones perspective amenable to credence, and they dont connote divinity like jesus does. despite this, i doubt most of these same atheists you accuse of being unfair would cry foul if you challenged the existence of other, better established historical figures. personally, im not attached to these pseudo-analogous figures; just so happens i didnt come on here to discuss them.
Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on May 4, 2010 at 11:22am
And you know this because? You don't know anything about me so drop the assumptions about what I would and would not challenge.

We're also not talking about divinity; we're talking about a specific Galilean preacher to whom divinity was later attributed. It's not the same thing, and your insistence on conflating the two isn't going to win you points.
Permalink Reply by boris urshugur on May 4, 2010 at 11:43am
i know enough. and i didnt make any assumptions on what you would or wouldnt challenge. youre not talking about divinity -- thats not a we. divinity was later attributed? later relative to what milestone, matt? im not interested in winning any points, so thats alright.
Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on May 4, 2010 at 12:56pm
Later being a period of time (the process of turning Jesus from Messiah into God took time) that started somewhere in the 70's AD and was largely over by the middle of the Second Century AD.
Permalink Reply by boris urshugur on May 4, 2010 at 1:31pm
messiah would still fall under divine. but anyway, later than what exactly? later than the period in which he was mentioned by historians?
Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on May 4, 2010 at 1:50pm
No, that is false: declaring yourself a Messiah did not entail divinity. The Messiah was believed to be the last "prophet" or messenger of Jahweh and would announce the Kingship of Yahweh. He was NOT divine; that was a much later (at least several decades after his death) invention by early Christians. The historical Jesus was a man and probably considered himself that way too.

And as far as we can tell, the process of turning Jesus into God was still on-going by the time Tacitus and Josephus mentioned the historical Jesus.
Permalink Reply by boris urshugur on May 4, 2010 at 2:02pm
"No, that is false: declaring yourself a Messiah did not entail divinity..."

no, its not false -- try a dictionary. "still on-going by the time..." as in, people regarded him as a god before his mention by those historians?
Permalink Reply by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on May 4, 2010 at 7:59pm
@boris urshugur

Boris, see Dannyisme's comments. Danny has a background in Jewish theology and argues cogently that the Jewish Messiah could _not_ be divine. That means that Jesus of Nazareth could either be the Messiah, or he could be god, but not both. Reading the New Testament in the light of that knowledge puts a whole new slant on things.

The only reason that modern day Christians and dictionaries believe the divinity and the Messiah are compatable is that it has been defined that way since the 3rd or 4th century. Period.
Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on May 5, 2010 at 1:06am
Yep, please distinguish between what Christians believe now and what Jews in the First Century AD (and by extension, Jesus himself) believed about the Messiah. The Hebrew word "Son of God" as a title for the Messiah had been used in a figurative sense for centuries in Judaism: just like the word "Shepherd of Men" or "The Light" were figurative statements, the same was true for "Son of God". It's only when Christianity drifted away from its Jewish roots that the term "Son of God" started to be interpreted (by non-Jewish Christians who had no background in Jewish eschatology) as literally being the SON of God. But at Jesus' time in a very Jewish context, the two were very much seperate concepts.

I recommend "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium" by Bart Ehrman. It's a very approachable introduction to the subject
Permalink Reply by boris urshugur on May 5, 2010 at 1:44am
theres no need for a distinction. whether god, son of god, or messenger for god (yahweh), thats still divine.

RSS

© 2013   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service