Jesus

[Geminize]

We have better historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth than we do for Alexander the Great. [ReasonableJeff]

This statement is blatantly and unquestionably false. Unlike Alexander, there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus. My understanding is that the earliest writings mentioning him date from 50 - 60 years after his alleged death.

So you have to come to the conclusion, this guy is either who he says he is, or he's a lying lunatic. [ReasonableJeff]

Since there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus, this is a false dichotomy. We do not know what (if anything) Jesus said, only what people decades and centuries later say he said.

Remember that what we know as "the Bible" is not a single work. It is a hodgepodge of writings from at least 40 different people apparently over a span of 1,600 years. They were not written with the intent of becoming a single work, but were cobbled together much later and eventually "legitimized" by a growing church to serve its purposes. Weird.

What do I think? As an atheist, I am fascinated by how the Jesus story evolved to become what it is today. The "leader of the free world" (as we Yanks like to refer to the US president) cannot be elected without a passably convincing belief in the Jesus story (thankfully not the Mormon story). In a society as varied as ours, I find that disturbing.

Accepting anything on faith alone is a path to delusion.

[Genersis]

This threads rather depressing all in all.

I understand us gay folk get bible bashed a lot; but we really shouldn't approach what seems like a genuine thread on Jesus with such...passive aggression I guess would be the right phrase?(I'm not talking about all the posts in this thread.)

[Lilitu]

As usual internet religious discussions generally turn into a mush of generalisations and name-calling matches, where neither side is compatible with the other.

But out of boredom and delaying exam study here is my little thought:

•To be absolutely fair, there is no such thing as an absolute. Doubt, however small will always be present in any matter; this is the concept which I try to accept and live by.
•What people suggest as a concept of 'negligible amount of doubt' is in my view still doubt and has significance when viewed in the bigger picture.
•Whether through science or faith or research, nothing in this world can be absolutely proved 100%

Jesus was probably a person, in my not very educated opinion, but this really has diluted significance in the context of the Christian Faith itself, since it is based on the available sources about and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

In fact, a similar thing can be said about Socrates. No direct sources are available, and all come from probably biased or slightly inaccurate writers, the main one Plato. Thus we don't know what Socrates' entire philosophy was in its original form. We also cannot know what Jesus' teachings were in its original form, since they come from second hand sources.

It's important today where science seems to the masses to be able to provide perfection and absolutes and certain facts, that the world is far from that. It's not and never will be how things work.

[Mrmatty77]

My dad's uncle's name is Jesus. I'm pretty sure he exists. If not, my whole family is on some sort of acid.

[Zet]

People were a lot more ignorant back then... I would be to if I was born 2000 years ago. There is a lot of mysterious phenomenons that enhanced the beliefs systems which has been proven wrong in today's society. I mean I can understand how they could believe in magic, gods, mythical beings and such, because if you don't know things like, what lightning is, how tornadoes generates, why and how it rains, or what fire is, it would all seem like magic.

But today we know even more than so, we've got knowledge so vast and technology so advanced that we can predict certain events and natural phenomenons. We know how the tiniest atoms can form a certain object, we can see out though the galaxies, we do understand gravity, magnetism... And everything around it. And if you think that Christianity as example, is over 2000 years old. Back then they know about nothing compared to today, so his doings might have seen as such a miracle because they did not posses the knowledge to explain everything and to prove him wrong.

What I believe, is that he was a man, like Buddha, whom was trying to change the society and inflicted it with moral standards, which we would call the Law in today's society (You shall not steal, you shall not kill, yada yada) to make the world a better place and to inflict love in a world filled with war and poverty. Most religions are very much a like, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism, Hinduism, etc... is all about peace, love and to reach divine salvation from doing good deeds and being a good person.

But if history has teach us anything, is that using religion as an excuse of scientific ignorance wont make the world blossom into another golden age. But without religion in yesterdays society, there would've been no morals against stealing, killing etc.

[pellaz]

my cheating husband's first name is jesus

[Dreamer]

Just because some of those ideas shouldn't be (and were never meant to be) taken literally doesn't mean they have no value.

The VALUE is finding the lesson in the parable (story).

The PROBLEM (like any -ism) is people perverting a body of work (like, say, Marx's Communist Manifesto or the U.S. Constitution) for their own selfish reasons.

Why not just let the work stand on it's own without judging it?

I never said they don't have value, I know desert fairy-tales have a ton of value to millions of people who fear death, and owning up to they're mistakes. I know it does a lot of good in many cases for people with no direction in their life, and people who endure trauma and misery, and so forth.

"The problem is people perverting a body of work", very true, especially when that body of work is highly perverted without their help, standing alone.

Why judge it? I think I did justice with my previous statement as to why, regarding some of the ridiculous things consisting in the bible and other silly books.

But, just in case you miss my point, here's a few more reasons:


Religion has cost the lives the lives of millions of innocent people.

Has started countless unnecessary wars and endless suffering.

It keeps society ignorant, suppressing advancements is education and science.

Justifies and precipitates horrible acts by evil people who, instead of making amends with the people they've hurt, find solace in asking an invisible man to forgive them with no internal-repercussions of their ill-will.

It exploits and manipulates vulnerable, simple-minded, fearful people into giving their hard-earned cash to evil leaders of religious denominations who feel a sense of entitlement and privilege to get away with the most heinous acts, and live lavish and powerful lives through eccentric misguiding marketing techniques, regrettably, with false hope, in return for good health and fortune, and VIP access to the pearly gates, as well as other deceptive fraudulent promises.

It pressures governments and societies to give immunity to pedophiles, excusing and permitting them, for thousands of years, to molest and rape children without any consequence.

It wastes my tax dollars for these evil disgusting corporate slime, in the means of tax-exemptions, and so forth, when they should be used for better causes like poverty, infrastructure, education etc..

And to top it off, it influences laws upon the land, oppressing women, children, and minorities, time and time again throughout history.

Yes, despite the handful of good that religion bestows upon civilization, there are millions of reasons why I oppose it.

[OrphanPip]

actuyally we have absolutely no evidence jesus existed, no historical records, no great reocrdings of revelations or his teachings, no physical evidence, nothing but the scrolls in the bible, nothing but the records written many years after his alleged death


and that by no means is any more proof we have of jesus than we do of superman or batman, we have books, that said they exist, and they did great things, but nothing to back them up.

Eh, that's a pretty spurious argument. While the gospels serve as poorly reliable evidence of specifics about Jesus, they are a pretty strong indication of somebody named Jesus having existed. Aside from that there are Roman accounts that refer to Jesus. There are few serious historians who would agree that Jesus did not exist.

[Geminize]

There are few serious historians who would agree that Jesus did not exist. [OrphanPip]

Most historians do agree that Jesus existed as a historical figure, but that's where the consensus ends. The cherished bible story of Jesus' birth borrows elements of Egyptian, Babylonian, and Sumerian myths, indicating that it was probably assembled to ease the conversion of the population at the time. Likewise, the modern christmas story borrows trappings from several early European pagan traditions. I see no reason to accept any book of the bible as other than cultish propaganda.

Originally Posted by LateBloomer
Just because some of those ideas shouldn't be (and were never meant to be) taken literally doesn't mean they have no value.

The VALUE is finding the lesson in the parable (story)...

Why not just let the work stand on it's own without judging it?

The problem there is that if the ideas weren't meant to be taken literally, then the work cannot stand on its own. It must be interpreted, and that's why we have hundreds of christian factions.

If there were a supreme being that wanted to communicate its intentions and 'laws' with us, I would hope it would make itself damn clear. No faith required. That would be praise worthy.

[OrphanPip]

Most historians do agree that Jesus existed as a historical figure, but that's where the consensus ends. The cherished bible story of Jesus' birth borrows elements of Egyptian, Babylonian, and Sumerian myths, indicating that it was probably assembled to ease the conversion of the population at the time. Likewise, the modern christmas story borrows trappings from several early European pagan traditions. I see no reason to accept any book of the bible as other than cultish propaganda.

That's why I said the Gospels serve as poor evidence of particulars. They are however strong evidence of a widespread acknowledgement of the existence of a particular person.

However, I would disagree with your view of intentions behind the texts, it is far more likely such narrative tropes are incorporated as part of the standard cultural language of the authors, rather than as any orchestrated means of deceiving people. Moreover, it is difficult to assign any single purpose to the Gospels about Christ, because they differ in their emphasis. I would even venture to say they differ generically.