Merci Beaucoup Pour Rien Le Francais
News0 min ago
Atheists on Jesus
42 Answers
What are atheist beliefs about Jesus Christ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Erin-Rose-x. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Atheists do not belong to an organised group that has a belief system in the way that religion does, so it’s impossible to generalise. Whilst some believe Jesus existed and others don’t, none believe he was God, the Son of God, born of a virgin, miraculously resurrected after death, or supernatural in any way at all. To an atheist he can only have been a normal human being - although as Molly says, he was thought to be ‘a bit mad‘ at times - well, according to the New Testament that is.
The historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is actually quite flimsy.
According to the New Testament gospels, Jesus' fame spread far and wide throughout his lifetime. He was known throughout Israel and beyond. He was renowned not only as a teacher and wise man, but also as a prophet and miraculous healer. Great multitudes of people followed him everywhere he went. He attracted the attention of some of the most prominent leaders of his day, both Roman and Jewish. And when he was crucified, portentous and dramatic miracles occurred on a massive scale: a great earthquake, a worldwide three-hour darkness, and the bodies of the saints arising from their tombs and walking the streets of Jerusalem, showing themselves to many people.
If all of the above things are true (as is claimed in the New Testament), it is beyond belief that the historians of the day could have failed to notice.
But they did.
Not a single contemporary historian mentions Jesus. The historical record is devoid of references to him for decades after his supposed death. The very first documents that do mention him are two brief passages in the works of the historian Josephus, written around 90 AD, but the longer of the two is widely considered to be a forgery and the shorter is likely to be one as well. The first unambiguous references to a historical, human Jesus, do not appear until well into the second century.
Quite frankly, it is unlikely that Jesus actually existed in any meaningful sense. It is more likely that the figure of Jesus is not a real person but more of a spiritual ideal to which Christians should aspire.
According to the New Testament gospels, Jesus' fame spread far and wide throughout his lifetime. He was known throughout Israel and beyond. He was renowned not only as a teacher and wise man, but also as a prophet and miraculous healer. Great multitudes of people followed him everywhere he went. He attracted the attention of some of the most prominent leaders of his day, both Roman and Jewish. And when he was crucified, portentous and dramatic miracles occurred on a massive scale: a great earthquake, a worldwide three-hour darkness, and the bodies of the saints arising from their tombs and walking the streets of Jerusalem, showing themselves to many people.
If all of the above things are true (as is claimed in the New Testament), it is beyond belief that the historians of the day could have failed to notice.
But they did.
Not a single contemporary historian mentions Jesus. The historical record is devoid of references to him for decades after his supposed death. The very first documents that do mention him are two brief passages in the works of the historian Josephus, written around 90 AD, but the longer of the two is widely considered to be a forgery and the shorter is likely to be one as well. The first unambiguous references to a historical, human Jesus, do not appear until well into the second century.
Quite frankly, it is unlikely that Jesus actually existed in any meaningful sense. It is more likely that the figure of Jesus is not a real person but more of a spiritual ideal to which Christians should aspire.
They didn't have such great imaginations. What they did have is the ability to take old stories and give them a new spin in order to promote their own world view.
There are dozens of stories that pre-date Jesus which tells of a man born of a virgin who becomes a law-giver and a leader of men;
There are dozens of stories that pre-date Jesus that describe a great flood in which only a few were saved;
There are dozens of stories that pre-date Jesus that describe a baby who is saved from murder by placing him in a basket and floating him down a river where he is subsequently found by the wife of a powerful leader;
The list is almost endless. Same story: difference time, place and names.
All these stories are recycled from earlier stories and they all pre-date Jesus by many thousands of years.
It suggests the possibility that these stories originate from a singular source – the names, places and dates have changed but the fundamental nugget of the story remains – Catastrophic floods and charismatic leaders / teachers shaping mankind's future.
There are dozens of stories that pre-date Jesus which tells of a man born of a virgin who becomes a law-giver and a leader of men;
There are dozens of stories that pre-date Jesus that describe a great flood in which only a few were saved;
There are dozens of stories that pre-date Jesus that describe a baby who is saved from murder by placing him in a basket and floating him down a river where he is subsequently found by the wife of a powerful leader;
The list is almost endless. Same story: difference time, place and names.
All these stories are recycled from earlier stories and they all pre-date Jesus by many thousands of years.
It suggests the possibility that these stories originate from a singular source – the names, places and dates have changed but the fundamental nugget of the story remains – Catastrophic floods and charismatic leaders / teachers shaping mankind's future.
I'm of the opinion that he didn't exist 2000 years ago.
I do think that that the Roman occupation in the Middle East is the perfect backdrop in which to place a charismatic, spiritual hero who fights against the oppressive invaders.
It's all so convenient. Invading forces, martyrdom, etc.
Persecution is a wonderfully emotive hook on which to hang a religion.
Pity there's no actual evidence to support the assertion that he existed.
I do think that that the Roman occupation in the Middle East is the perfect backdrop in which to place a charismatic, spiritual hero who fights against the oppressive invaders.
It's all so convenient. Invading forces, martyrdom, etc.
Persecution is a wonderfully emotive hook on which to hang a religion.
Pity there's no actual evidence to support the assertion that he existed.
I have no reason to disbelieve that there was a man called Jesus Christ, but not as a God as proclaimed by religeon. He would have been one of the early cult leaders who was rather successful.
In the 'early' days people were unaware of modern day science which proves ecclesiastical teachings as a fairy tale. In medieval times Citizens were fearful of the religious doctrine since even priests often sentenced disbelievers to death.
In the 'early' days people were unaware of modern day science which proves ecclesiastical teachings as a fairy tale. In medieval times Citizens were fearful of the religious doctrine since even priests often sentenced disbelievers to death.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Birdie's assertion that there is no contemporary reference to Jesus is contentious.
Because there are very few contemporary records - try and find any comtemporary records for anyone of that time and you'd be forced to conclude that there was almost nobody there.
It's more likely that his fame was exagerated than that he did not exist!
Moreover there is an alleged near contemporary record of him although at least one of the references is an obvious forgery.
This is Josephus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus (Caution on believing wikipedia on contentious subjects - this is a contentious subject!)
There seems to be little reason to think he didn't exist but there would have been many similar itinerant teachers at that time reputedly healing the sick and raising the dead. Look at the prolific number of witch doctors and faith healers in the world.
The only really special thing is that his teachings got taken up by Paul who spread them to the Roman empire, had them written down and most importantly of all that Constantine adopted them
Because there are very few contemporary records - try and find any comtemporary records for anyone of that time and you'd be forced to conclude that there was almost nobody there.
It's more likely that his fame was exagerated than that he did not exist!
Moreover there is an alleged near contemporary record of him although at least one of the references is an obvious forgery.
This is Josephus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus (Caution on believing wikipedia on contentious subjects - this is a contentious subject!)
There seems to be little reason to think he didn't exist but there would have been many similar itinerant teachers at that time reputedly healing the sick and raising the dead. Look at the prolific number of witch doctors and faith healers in the world.
The only really special thing is that his teachings got taken up by Paul who spread them to the Roman empire, had them written down and most importantly of all that Constantine adopted them
It always seems rather odd to me that this man's life wasn't documented in minute detail. He was God, for heaven's sake, so wouldn't you think that someone would have taken the trouble to construct a proper record of his time here on earth? However, no one did, which confirms to me that he wasn't considered to be God in his own lifetime. That handy idea came much later.
There is no "official" position adopted by atheists regarding Jesus. The term atheist refers only to a position on the belief of a God, or supernatural creator - which is of sceptical disbelief.
As to Jesus - I think that most atheists would agree that, if such a character even existed, all supernatural events ascribed to him are likely myth and fable.
As to Jesus - I think that most atheists would agree that, if such a character even existed, all supernatural events ascribed to him are likely myth and fable.
Jake - could you please email here ......
[email protected]
for a private word. Thanks. :o)
Apologies for the interruption, Erin-Rose.
[email protected]
for a private word. Thanks. :o)
Apologies for the interruption, Erin-Rose.
'Atheism' is the default mode for all human beings. It's only as people grow that the idea of God - and it is only an idea - is implanted. The word atheist shouldn't really exist at all because it implies a non-belief in something that no one can prove exists in the first place. Hence, the likelihood is that atheists believe in the nothing that does in reality exist - and therefore their opinion requires no description - if you see what I mean. :o/
