What do atheists think of Jesus?

[Deathdude650]

I'm new to the forum and was wondering if anyone has any thoughts to share on Jesus. I've noticed that I'm the minority on the forum [i.e. a theist] which I think is a great opportunity to learn and discuss with people who have a different worldview than I do. Below I've listed some questions that can get a dialog going, but please don't feel limited by them. Also if any theists find this post I want to hear from you as well. Please share your thoughts, questions, etc.

First, did Jesus even exist? Do you have any thoughts to share on a historical Jesus ignoring whether he rose from the dead, preformed miracles or was God?

Second, in correlation with the first, if you don't believe a historical Jesus existed where did this character come from? Obviously there are a lot of people who believe there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth two thousand years ago who wasn't just a man, but more than a man. How do you think this came about?

Third, what do you think about the person of Jesus portrayed in the four Gospels? Do you agree with him on anything? Disagree? I'm interested in your thoughts.

Finally, do you have any questions for me about Jesus? I'm not an expert in any sense, but I'll try my best to answer any questions that come up.

I appreciate how I've been treated so far on this forum and look forward to interacting with more people in the future.

[Red]

1. Actually, but all historical accounts of Jesus were written 60-100 years after he lived. His existance is disputable.
Nonetheless

2. Uh....
Be more specific pweese.

3. From what I read, Jesus sounds like a pretty good guy. Probably someone you can play Counter Strike with, even though He'll most likely dominate you. All jokes aside, He does sound like someone I'd like to know. He loves me, so why not love him back?
But his Dad's a total dick..

4.No questions, thanks. I'll tell you if I got any

[Deathdude650]

Thank you for your reply, I especially think #3 is funny

Let me briefly reply to your points:
1. I'm curious where you got the dates 60-100 years after he lived from. Assuming Jesus died around 30 AD (CE if you prefer), 60 years would possibly put Mark, commonly accepted as the earliest of the gospels at 90 AD (CE) and John commonly accepted as the latest of the written gospels as late as 180 AD (CE). This is simply not reflected in the Greek Manuscript record. According to the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts' library, the P52 fragment, which contains 18 lines of the gospel of John dates to the first half of the second century, the original manuscript [the autograph] can within reason, be presumed to have been written earlier than that. While this would still be several decades after Jesus lived, when compared to the records of other historical figures like Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great even 60-100 years is early for documentation.

2. I'm more than happy to be more specific. If Jesus was not a historical figure, then how do you explain the movement that is centered around his supposed life? I'm not saying that just because Christianity is still prominent today that means Jesus existed and the Bible is true, but something began the movement that indisputably can be dated back at least to the fourth century with the conversion of Constantine. If it wasn't first century followers of a historical Jesus, what started it?

3. Like I said above, this one is just funny (in a good way). I don't have much more to say on this one.

I'm not sure if links are allowed, but if you look up the name of the organization I stated above or search "P52 manuscript" you ought to find some more information. I could provide the link if its allowed or private message it upon request. I appreciate your honest answer and look forward to conversing again.

[2048]

I do believe that Jesus did exist. The reason for that is the fact that it's such a complicated story about how he was from king Davids lineage. The people that would have made up the story about Jesus would way easier have made up better ways to portray him.

But I don't believe that he did everything people say that he did. I simply think that he had a group of following that was poor because he cared about them, and as the time went by people exaggerated what he did. He was probably a man who felt like he wanted to do more in his life and was just a person who tried to do what's best. He probably also told the people about religion because he knew that that would make people trust him more. We can't forget that in this time many many people claimed that they ether was god or a person sent by god. The only difference is the fact that most people that said that was royalty or really rich and had power.

I don't think that he was crucified because the romans made notes about everything important that happened in their empire, and there is no letter or text about a person who claimed to be good who got killed. And if he was crucified he wasn't that important in the eyes of the romans which means that he didn't do any miracles or anything like that.

My opinion about Jesus is that he was a good person for his time. He probably did allot of good since he is against being rich and was a person who people found moral. But he isn't a good person in todays standard due to the fact that we have changed allot over the years.

A person can surely find good parts in the bible but you can also find bad immoral parts. The people who wrote the bible was middle eastern men and you can see that in the stories in the bible, in what they thought was right and wrong.

One question I would like to ask you is; christians often say that "we follow the new testament and not everything in the old one because Jesus came and changed it" how can you explain this:
Matthew 5:17-20King James Version (KJV)

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

He clearly states that you have to follow the laws from the old prophets and that means many laws that you can't follow in todays modern society. What are your thoughts about what I said, and did I get something wrong because I'm surely not an expert ^^

[Deathdude650]

I'll answer your question first and what a great question it is! First, let's look at the passage itself. If you look at the context surround the verse Jesus is giving the sermon on the mount. We'll break it down verse by verse.

(17) What did Christ mean by the law? Remember he is speaking in a Jewish culture to a Jewish audience, but the the law he meant the law of Moses, the Torah or the first five books of the Bible. When Jesus said the prophets he is referring to the rest of the Old Testament. He did not come to abolish or do away with it, but rather to fulfill it or bring it to completion. What does this means? Well the first meaning that can be pulled from is that Jesus was referring to the prophesies of the coming Messiah. Matthew 16:16-17 tells us that Jesus was the coming Messiah. (If you believe the Bible of course, I'm not arguing this is true, but only telling how I would explain the verses in relation to Scripture as a whole). More can be interpreted though, the entire Old Testament points to Christ. The sacrificial system points to his death which paid for sin, just to give an example. I won't risk boring you with the details because it gets off topic, but I could tell you more about this idea if you'd be interested.

(18) In some translations one jot or one tittle is translated one iota/yod, one dot. The iota is the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet and the yod is the smallest in the Hebrew alphabet. Basically, Jesus meant not even the smallest change will take place until the law is fulfilled. During Jesus' life he fulfilled part of the law, the coming Messiah, the sacrificial system, circumcision, and other traditions. Other laws will be fulfilled when Christ comes again. However, this verse is important because it holds the key to understanding why Christians aren't bound by the Old Testament law anymore. God made his covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15, this covenant was expanded on with Moses when God gave Moses the law and made Israel his chosen people. Because Israel was God's chosen people he gave them laws to set them apart from other nations, laws about what to wear, what to eat, when to work, etc. Christ fulfilled these laws in his life on earth, therefore these laws were accomplished. Which allowed Christ to create a new covenant open to all people, not just the people of Israel.

(19) Not even the smallest commandment that hasn't been fulfilled in Christ's life on earth ought to be followed, but should be given as much importance as the greater commandments Jesus gave. For example in Matthew 22:37-39 Jesus tells us the greatest commandment. "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." and the second greatest commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." He then tells us that if we follow these commandments then even the smaller commandments will be followed (Matthew 22:40)

(20) The scribes and Pharisees sought to keep the law in its entirety, which they found to be impossibly because of human sinfulness. What Jesus is saying in this verse is that in order to get into the kingdom of heaven on your own you have to far more righteous (obey the law far more closely) than the pharisees and scribes did. Which isn't possible, hence why Jesus came and died, to make another way. Because Christ did exceed the righteousness and follow the law.

I hope this answered your question, I know it was a lot, so if anything was confusing please don't hesitate to ask.

Due to the length of answering your question I won't go as in depth with sharing my thoughts on what you said, but I'll do my best to give a meaningful reply:

1. There is another difference other than power and wealth between Jesus and other who said they were god. For example, the Roman emperor at the time was Tiberious Claudius Nero and he was thought of as a god. However, he was a Roman god, one from or in the Roman pantheon. Romans were of course polytheists. Jesus claimed to be from, (and to be, but let's not get into the trinity at the moment) the one God of Israel. Jews were monotheistic.

2. How do you know the Romans made note of every crucifixion? Further, how do you know they didn't record his crucifixion and that it was destroyed in the siege of Jerusalem or simply not copied and lost somewhere in the 2000 years since? I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I can see other options that might be worth looking into.

This more or less sums up my thoughts on what you said. From what I can tell nothing you said necessarily needs correction as far as established facts go. However there are some discrepancies, which I think come down more to a difference in worldview than anything else. I look forward to conversing with you in the future.

[Red]

1. I'm curious where you got the dates 60-100 years after he lived from. Assuming Jesus died around 30 AD (CE if you prefer), 60 years would possibly put Mark, commonly accepted as the earliest of the gospels at 90 AD (CE) and John commonly accepted as the latest of the written gospels as late as 180 AD (CE). This is simply not reflected in the Greek Manuscript record. According to the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts' library, the P52 fragment, which contains 18 lines of the gospel of John dates to the first half of the second century, the original manuscript [the autograph] can within reason, be presumed to have been written earlier than that. While this would still be several decades after Jesus lived, when compared to the records of other historical figures like Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great even 60-100 years is early for documentation.

I say this because there's a lack of any mention of him during the time he was supposedly alive. I made a post here a qhile back about a source on this matter, and it wasn't the only source.

https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... esus#p3991
I never have or will claim that he didn't exist, but due to the lack of any evidence, his existance is disputable. So I myself can settle on a "Probably".

2. I'm more than happy to be more specific. If Jesus was not a historical figure, then how do you explain the movement that is centered around his supposed life? I'm not saying that just because Christianity is still prominent today that means Jesus existed and the Bible is true, but something began the movement that indisputably can be dated back at least to the fourth century with the conversion of Constantine. If it wasn't first century followers of a historical Jesus, what started it?

So you're askin' how did Christianity become so prevelant? Well, the Bible is an obvious answer, word of mouth, and people who were curious as to why they are here and how the Universe started. just think: How did other religions become accepted when they are supposedly wrong?

I'm not sure if links are allowed, but if you look up the name of the organization I stated above or search "P52 manuscript" you ought to find some more information. I could provide the link if its allowed or private message it upon request. I appreciate your honest answer and look forward to conversing again.

It was written about 125-150 AD, about the times when I estimated, which was about 90-120 years after Jesus lived. But, like I said, there is a chance that Jesus existed.

[brimstoneSalad]

First, did Jesus even exist? Do you have any thoughts to share on a historical Jesus ignoring whether he rose from the dead, preformed miracles or was God?

This isn't really a coherent question until you define what you mean by "Jesus".

There were many people at the time named Yeshua. So, there have been plenty of "Jesus"es throughout the ages.
There were many magicians and con-men. And there were many honest philosophers.
There were many sham healers. And there were many honest doctors learning and practicing the science and art of healing.

Any number of figures who could be imagined to fit the bill of a "historical Jesus" could have existed, because the definition is so vague.

Certainly there would have been many Jewish men named Yeshua who were philosophers of religion or morality, or magicians, or healers false or honest.

Depending on where you set the bar for a legitimate historical Jesus (how close does the person have to match the stories?), there would be more or fewer people who would fit that bill.

Don't assume, either, that the stories that have been carried on all came from the same person. It's a common trend in historical narrative to bundle up the feats or stories of multiple people and ascribe them to one -- particularly likely when there are common and likely repeated names like that.

A group of several dozen Essenes/early Ebionites traveling and preaching compassion (to the poor, and against animal sacrifice) with four or five people named Yeshua among them quickly have all of their actions ascribed to a single fictionalized "Yeshua" who is a combination of all of them.

Were there people that inspired some of the stories of the literary Jesus (from which they were exaggerated)? Yes, probably. Were they all one person? Very unlikely. Did a single historical Jesus Exist? No, probably not. Did historical Jesuses (perhaps even by multiple names) exist? Yes, probably.

Third, what do you think about the person of Jesus portrayed in the four Gospels? Do you agree with him on anything? Disagree? I'm interested in your thoughts.

The Nicene canonical gospels depict different versions, and among them contradictions. "Apocryphal" texts are probably more accurate. Most accurate of all are the critical accounts of early Ebionite beliefs and practices, which give us a reflection of the historical figures behind the scenes of the earliest writings and philosophy of the first unnamed 'Christians'.

This is how we know, for example, that they were vegetarians and opposed animal sacrifice (which was the meaning behind the cleansing of the temple).
They also had a more complex and probably figurative metaphysics (as the Essenes they came from, Angels were important), and they did not believe that YHWH had a physical child; this is an interpretation derived from Roman mythology, tailored for a gentile audience.

Anyway, from what I've seen of the criticism of them by early Pauline/Nicene Roman dogmatists who coopted Christian belief to their own ends, the original founders were kind of cool. Almost Jain, or Buddhist-like.

Interpreted correctly from the earliest Gospel, with an understanding of Ebionite beliefs, and ignoring all of the Pauline re-interpretation, it makes a much more plausible and inspiring story of progressive values.

1. There is another difference other than power and wealth between Jesus and other who said they were god. [...] Romans were of course polytheists. Jesus claimed to be from, (and to be, but let's not get into the trinity at the moment) the one God of Israel. Jews were monotheistic.

The Roman concept was to have the blood of gods. Becoming a god was a matter of ascension. It was important for anybody who would be taken particularly seriously (like an emperor) to have divine blood, since the Romans, from the Greeks, were quite fatalistic. Blood would indicate destiny, or potential.

The deification of the Christ character was done for Roman audiences, and not something the Early 'Christians' believed -- those who existed before the phrase was coined as Ebionites, following in the tradition of the Essenes with a bit of philosophical development.

This is also clearly evident in Jewish tradition which considers practices like the trinity to be Shituf, and in Islam (which branched off from very early Christianity (apparently pre-Pauline corruption; or at least before it spread to those regions) where the practice is considered Shirk.
Note that in Islam, Shirk is unforgivable to anybody who dies in that state (Jew, Christian, Muslim), identified unambiguously as the triune corruption (a form of polytheism) a number of times, and yet the early Christians of the region are considered 'people of the book' and can be saved. Non-Trinitarian Christianity is clearly recorded through the views of both the earliest real Christians, and the critical reflections from other religions on what they saw as the perversions of monotheistic faith.

It's also important to note, that the Jews were Henotheistic until quite recently. The shift began around 800 B.C.E, going from each tribe or nation having a patron god, to the assertion that YHWH was the only god worth worshiping and the most powerful (though others exist). Modern explicitly monotheistic (denying the existence at all of other gods) wasn't fully crystallized until somewhere between the 5th and 6th century C.E. following a long history of skepticism.
Monotheism, in ancient times, meant a very different thing to what it does today, and polytheism was mainly considered a matter of worship rather than belief since most people assumed that other people's gods probably existed (and just weren't as good as their own gods).

While this would still be several decades after Jesus lived, when compared to the records of other historical figures like Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great even 60-100 years is early for documentation.

No. 60-100 years is not early for documentation. Anybody very important was well documented within their own lifetimes, in coins and statues if nothing else. That's in part how we know they existed. Physical evidence.

Beyond that, for Alexander the Great (as one example), not only do we have two distinct pieces of written evidence (in stone) from his lifetime from different regions, but we also have biographies by historians that, while written later, reference by name multiple sources who lived during his lifetime and were witnesses to his life. Scripture, in contrast, is anonymous and makes no attempt at scholarly rigor.
There's also a wealth of corroborating archaeological evidence for his conquests in terms of the spread of culture -- a small cult just doesn't leave that kind of archaeological footprint, so we wouldn't expect that kind of evidence for any historical Yeshuas (and so should have no strong reason to assume any particular one or ones existed).

I also think you are confusing evidence of a historical figure's existence for corroborating evidence of specific famous stories about that figure.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... david.html

This article does a good job of explaining why this is not a reasonable comparison to be making. We know Alexander existed, we know he was in places and conquered, and we're just fuzzy on the details. We have no idea if any particular "Yeshua" existed, or what he did based on the scant evidence available. All we can do is follow the trends in religion and philosophy as they're recorded, and speculate that they may or may not be based on somebody in particular (more likely, a whole group of people).

[Adien22]

1/2.(I'm going to answer both 1 and 2) I'm an atheist and i do believe in Jesus, but not in the same way everyone else does. There was a man nick named king Jesus around the same time. He opposed the Romans and their beliefs. He was in a sense the leader of rebels. He challenged the authority of the Claudian Emperor at the time, so he was captured and crucified. A man named Flavius Josephus felt pity for this man, so he paid off some guards to have him taken down. He appeared to be dead at the time. Josephus had him moved to a grave site. however, the man named Jesus, by luck would have it, had just passed out. he woke up after a few days and got his injuries healed. Josephus was amazed with this mans story that he actually wrote a book on his account. a few books actually. One of which you know today as the bible. He was the creator of ALL the "new testament". The old testament is historical documents found from other places and other religions. The old testament was added for effect and back story to make it sound better. it has grown over the years into what we see today. Everything i've said you can go research for yourself. i don't want you to just take my word for it
(This is a grossly over-summarized story of what was truly written down in texts)

3. No i don't like the Jesus of the bible. He told people that they must hate there fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, and even themselves if they wanted to become disciples. (Luke 14:26) (Matthew 10:34-37)
He also condoned slavery (Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Luke 12:47-48)

4. I'm not sure what to ask at this time. i'm sure i'll think of something lol sorry if my comments sound or seem bitter (I've been told this a few times) i assure you i'm not

[Deathdude650]

Your thoughts are interesting, I've never heard someone believe that about Jesus before. The one problem I'd like to point out is that Josephus was born in 37 AD (CE) and most scholars who agree that Jesus of Nazareth did exist also agree he was born before 1 AD (CE) and died around the age of 33. However, even assuming that they're wrong Josephus would have been a little boy when Jesus was toward the end of his life if he was crucified.

I know you said this was greatly summarized, so perhaps there's a way to make sense of all this? Also, the most cited passage in Josephus about Jesus has been shown to have been added to, though some believe there was something about him written there.

No need to apologize for your comments sounding bitter. While I can see some factual discrepancies and one big one, namely your supposed explanation for the resurrection, it sounds like it could be somewhat reasonable.

[Adien22]

That was what I'm saying. The man Josephus was talking about was born around the same time as him. At least that's my take on it anyway.

I believe there is a YouTube channel that goes through all the Josephus books and the bible showing the patterns and time line through history. If you would like me to find it I will. For more clarity. I don't qualify myself as an expert in the subject matter. I think I'd just make a mess of explaining anything