I am really sorry if this has been posted before.

 

If you knew me in person, you would know I love getting into discussions with people about religion. One of the questions that seems to keep coming into the discussion loop is Jesus.

 

So I was at a social gathering the other night at a restaurant and I dropped my silverware and out of habit I said "Jesus Christ!" And a random girl that was a friend of a friend said, "Don't use the Lords name in vain."

 

So obviously we got into a debate.

 

I brought up the point in the discussion that Jesus never existed. Well everyone looked at me like i was off the wall insane...

 

At that point the discussion just turned into incoherent ramblings and Grrrr... So frustrating that people base their whole life on hearsay! Simply dumbfounding!!!

 

Help me feel better... seriously.

Tags: jesus

Views: 241

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I would argue that his followers (certain ones) were more likely to be the con artists who took advantage of people in very deep mourning after the death/disappearance of a charismatic, wise man.
In his book 'Godless' which I highly recommend btw, Dan Barker writes that there is no external historical confirmation for the New Testament stories. The early years of the Roman Republic is one of the most historically documented times in history, yet not a single word about Jesus appears outside of the New Testament in the entire first century. Whether myth or legend, the life of Jesus is not corroborated.
So I guess your point is that despite the lack of any evidence to support the belief that Jesus was a real person, you believe that he was. Maybe you should reiterate it 100 more times.

The dates of pretty much every gospel I'm aware of are several decades or centuries after the purported death of Jesus.

 

the epistles about the Christ do not ever speak of his existence as a human, rather as a divine entity.

 

But, feel free to stick to your confirmation bias.

May I suggest (and remember - I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus -but in the possibility that there may have been a man who inspired the collection of new mythologies) that - sects and cults and political outcasts did not have the tools to write down historical occurrences the way they do now.  We are possibly dealing with a sect that started out as an oral tradition.  My understanding is that both gospels in the canon and the apocrypha point to the possibility of older sources, written or oral, that no longer exist.  Revisions likely made Jesus (or whatever his name was) into a more impressive figure than was likely found in the original oral traditions.  The Gospel of Thomas (one of the more respected apocryphal texts - historically speaking) has a much more human approach to the presentation of "Jesus" - and there is a lot less revision than what one finds in the canonical gospels.  The Canon is more geared to an immortal god, while Thomas (doubting Thomas) presents a more finite wise man/philosophy. 

 

The fact that the Gospels in the Canon were written decades after his purported death/disappearance does not prove that some form of spiritual/political leader did not exist or inspire the writing down of the oral traditions of a sect. 

I think that the 'Jesus' character is an amalgum of stories about other people who lived both before and after the time when 'Jesus' was supposed to be around. I forget where I read this as it was some time ago, but the evidence presented impressed me enough to remember the concept. So, no, I don't think 'Jesus' existed either.

They may have attributed stuff from other religions/cultures and from people related to them, but that doesn't really proves that the whole Jesus story hasn't started from an actual man, probably named Jesus.

Someone can decide to attribute a lot of great stuff (the stuff attributed to Jesus is debatable whether or not is great) inspired from other people's lives to George W. Bush. That wouldn't mean he never actually existed (even if that would have been better).

I do not think there was an actual Jesus of the bible.  He is a fictional character based on other religions.  There is nothing about his story that is unique or verifiable.  There is (as far as I know) nothing actually written by or about him from people who should have known him.  What is NOT there speaks much louder than what IS there, in this case, for me.
Exactly!
A Jesus probably did exist in the area at the time as it was a very common name but the jesus of the bible is unlikely and the story told of him in the bible even less so.

It's alright if you think that Jesus never existed, however I would suggest not to ignore any evidence of him existing in the first place. 

 

The Fifth Watcher does make some valuable points that need to be considered here. Heck if Jesus existed maybe he was like the first Criss Angel or something. In conclusion I don't think that it matters if Jesus really existed or not, his damn book has plagued the earth and lasted two thousand years already. I think that qualifies for still being alive in a sense. 

If you do not believe that any 'prophet' in the first century did not exist, you will be laughed out of a room by experts and scholars in this field.

 

As James Dunn said, the historical and Biblical Jesus are not two different beings, but rather we need to find the link between the two...

 

Also, Will Durant and N.T Wright both believe the best explanation for the rise of Christianity was Jesus; a Jesus that died and rose again...

RSS

Atheist Sites

Blog Posts

The plane that never crashed

Posted by Brazillian atheist on November 27, 2014 at 12:17pm 0 Comments

Rounding Up?

Posted by Carol Foley on November 20, 2014 at 3:17am 2 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service