Jesus Did Exist
As an Atheist and a former Christian, I am frequently confronted by Christians claiming that Jesus was real and I should believe in him again. These Christians fail to realize that I do believe Jesus existed. I believe he may have been crucified. I do not believe he rose from the dead. If Jesus existed then there are a few possibilities. He was either, the actual son of God, a con artist, a mentally deranged man, or a normal man that had embellished stories written about him after his death. We can examine evidence to determine which of these is most likely.
For those who are not sure he existed, there are several people that have written about the existence of Jesus outside of the Bible. Cornelius Tacitus born in 55 AD wrote that Christ suffered at the hands of Pontius Pilate. This is an example of a non biblical writer recording the existence of Jesus. There are several others. These writings make a strong argument for the existence of Jesus. But did Jesus have powers?
In the past few decades several people have claimed to be God or a messenger from God. But in today’s society these people are seen as con artist or delusional. There are a few who fall under the spell of deception and believe these people really have some magical powers or believe they are God, but the rest of us are not fooled. We know these people are not special and have no magical powers.
We see their followers in highly emotional states claiming their new friend is the messiah, and we know they have been deceived or brainwashed. David Koresh made claims like this and had many people believing his deceit. Now he is dead, but there are still people who believe he was God. Yes, there are a few Branch Davidians still around. If his followers pass these beliefs onto their children and friends, in the future they may become just as numerous as the followers or other religions. Why is this any different than Mohamed, Joseph Smith, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones, or Jesus?
We can clearly see that people that make these ludicrous claims today are not magical. Why is it any different when the story is passed down for thousands of years? Does the passage of time make the story more valid? Not one shred of evidence was left by any of Jesus’ alleged miracles. Due to the lack of evidence and the sheer ridiculous nature of the stories I do not believe Jesus had any magical powers and was not the son of any God. So was Jesus a con artist?
At the time of Jesus’ life, knowledge about the world was only a fraction of what it is today. This advance is not just in science. People now question things that sound either too good to be true or not realistic. This type of questioning mind is far more advanced than primitive man. We know today that if a man is seen walking on water it is just a trick. If we see someone claiming to bend spoons with there mind, they are simple using slight of hand. No magical powers are needed to perform these deceptions.
I am not claiming everyone today is a skeptic. Unfortunately we still have people today who believe in ESP, psychics, ghost, UFOs, Bigfoot, Unicorns, Dragons, and faith healers. These are the same people that would most likely believe someone claiming to be a messiah.
Would it have been easier to fool people in the first century? Imagine, if Houdini had time traveled back to the first century and performed his illusions for hundreds of people and also claimed to be the son of God. Then today we would likely have millions of Houdini churches, with all the followers worshiping the magician.
So was Jesus a con artist like Peter Popoff or Uri Gellar? Or did he really believe he had powers. Most magicians and physics are trying to make money with their tricks. According to the outside biblical references to Jesus, he seemed to be humble man and not very wealthy. Therefore I do not believe he was knowingly trying to deceive people for material gain. He did not seem to gain any wealth or social status with his claims. So, was Jesus delusional?
If Jesus really believed he was the son of God and believed he possessed magical powers, he was delusional. This seems likely because Jesus was willing to die for his beliefs. Although being willing to die for a belief does not make the belief true. The Branch Davidians were willing to burn alive in the
The New Testament stories of Jesus were written long after he died. Paul did not write about Jesus until long after Jesus’ death and the gospels were not written until after that. These stories could have been embellished to make Jesus look powerful and divine. To a first century mind these miracles seemed possible and adding them to the stories may have seemed like a good way to promote Christianity. It is possible that Jesus never even claimed to do miracles. The miracles may have been added to the spoken stories.
Imagine telling your friend of something spectacular you just saw. How accurate is your story. Maybe you stretched the truth just a bit to make the story a little more exciting, you may have even done it on accident. Just like other legends, the story of Jesus was first passed down by word of mouth and eventually written down. This word of mouth passing is where the story could have been altered to such a degree the end result might barely resemble the truth. Jesus may not have even claimed to be the son of God. He could have been a very wise man that taught people to love one another and to be kind to everyone without the magical additions. But in an attempt to make Jesus impressive, the story tellers may have fabricated the miracles, the Son of God claim, the virgin birth, the resurrection, and the ascension. I think this is a plausible explanation.
It’s ashamed too. They may have taken a man who could have possible been one of history’s great philosophers of love and human understanding and made his story so unbelievable, that people question his very existence. Their intentions may have been good, but the truth would have been better. For me, I believe Jesus existed, and was a good man with some wise teachings, even without the miracles.
Actions are more important than Beliefs.
.
Comments
The early church also added a passage about Jesus in Josephus' history of the Jews because Jesus' omission in the original was so incredibly embarrassing. You see had Jesus been real,he would have been extensively commented on by the Jewish/Roman Josephus.
There is a jesuspuzzle site that has excellent analysis of this subject. If you review that sight, I think you'd modify your position.
Dee
I'll answer this. Of course it's possible. Early man didn't know about Pluto but it was there. The problem is people making claims that can't be backed up. Believing things just because someone told you or you read it in a book isn't a good enough reason to believe it.
----
Jesus could well have been delusional. His mother may have told him he was a gift of God; she had committed adultery and that was punishable by death.
BR
This is an appeal to ignorance. It's the claim "you cannot prove it does not exist therefor you must accept that it might". On the surface this appears like a good argument until you start to think about all the pink unicorns, purple faeries, and green gremlins that *might* exist in your house when you are not looking.
This is a logical fallacy (might I suggest this link : http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html)
You ask "Are you saying that there is no possibility for something to exist outside of our senses?"
Well, of course there is. We can't see in the infrared for example (insects can), we don't have the sense of smell a dog has, nor can we echo-locate like a bat. We can, however, experience these senses through cameras and soundsystems.
Who knows how much we might yet learn about what is in nature which we can't see because of our limited senses (so much for 'intelligent design' - our 'perfectly designed' bodies are woefully limited and flawed)
But you are not really asking about our senses and what is in nature which we can't sense. What you're asking is "Are you saying that there is no possibility for something to exist outside of nature" - you are asking about the *supernatural*, that which supposedly exists *outside* of nature, the universe and everything in it. This is what you mean with your second question; "is this concrete world and universe all there is?"
My answer to you is this:
We live in a huge (infinite) and complex universe, filled with wonder, just there for us to discover, and you want *more*?
Moreover, you want something as banal, as limiting, as a god who, standing outside of the universe (umm, kinda hard to wrap my head around this because 'the universe' translates as 'all that is' - how can something exist *outside* that 'which is'?), who, outside of the universe is making up rules for us about what we eat, what fabric we should wear and when we should have sex.
I wanted to stop this post here, but then I started trying to imagine communicating with such a being (ignoring the fact, of course, that supernatural things - that is, this that are beyond the limits of existence) and the closest analogy would be a mayfly (with the life-expectancy of hours) in, say, France, trying to communicate with an elephant (life-expectancy of decades) in Africa. Or a whale in the ocean.
And even that analogy doesn't quite add up because both mayfly and elephant are carbon-based physical lifeforms whilst the supernatural being is, by nature of it being outside the physical universe, neither carbon-based nor physical.
The question arises immediatly; why should the mayfly wish to know of the elephant. Why should it want to communicate with it? Even when you suppose that the mayflies and elephants and whales could understand eachother's communication, what possible value could the mayfly derive from trying to communicate with an elephant? The elephant could take hours (the entire lifespan of the mayfly) trumpetting and all it had said was "yum, acacia-leaves! My favourite!" or "sorry, can't talk right now, I'm taking a leak".
Even if we imagine that the whale was interested in anything that happened outside the ocean, it's habitat, and was aware of the existence of mayflies in general, let alone any individual mayflies, what could the whale say that would be of value to the mayfly?
The problem, Dee, is that, deriving from your post, you expect that a supernatural being would give some meaning to your life. You expect that the knowledge that such a being exists would give you answers to questions you have about life, the universe and everything.
Dee, honey, the only meaning in your life *you* will have to put there. You will have to determine what will make your life valuable. Other people can't do that. Vague beings from outside the physical world (but who are somehow intimitely interested in your life) can't do that.
But the good news is: you've got a whole, amazingly wonderful, physical universe to explore. You've got 6 billion human beings to choose your friends from.
Why should you want anything beyond that. Who would want an invisible friend when we have such riches?
Who are you trying to convince with this post? Remember, we are X-Christians. We've already figured these things out.
First of all, whether or not Jesus existed matters little to me. There are too many conflicting accounts of his life throughout the gospels, his prophecies have failed to materialize, most of the events attributed to his life "proving" he was the son of god were borrowed from pagan myths popular at the time about other savior son gods, and the list goes on.
If archeologists could prove with certainty that Jesus existed they would have to find his bones (some believe they have found the burial tomb of Jesus and his family including Mary Magdelene, but as could be expected, this is being disputed). If archeologists ever did find such evidence, it would make the Christian faith null and void considering the fact that their faith rests upon the "fact" of his resurrection. Without this actual evidence or some other form of convincing archeological evidence, we will never know if Jesus did, in fact exist, but what does it matter? As I stated before, there are enough conflicting and disturbing facts that easily lead one away from a belief in the deity of this man, that it hardly matters whether or not he ever lived in the first place.
As you stated, the fact that Jesus may have actually suffered crucifixion for his beliefs hardly proves he was the actual son of God, nor does the fact that his followers died for the cause prove anything other than that they were devout. Sincerity does not equal truth. One can still be sincerely wrong. Muslim extremists commit suicide everyday; Japanese Kamakazi pilots did the same. You mentioned the followers of David Koresh who still believe him to be God.
The only reason we question Jesus' existence and diety at all is because his following is so large and his claims so audacious. If Christianity had remained a secluded sect we would not give his claims much thought at all, but thanks to Constantine and the Nicene Council, we are almost forced to give it much thought as the consequences for our unbelief are said to be grave and eternal. Islamic consequences are the same regarding their God, and yet those of us at Ex-C do not lose sleep worrying about HIS hell, now do we? Why is that? We do not sit around debating whether or not there is sufficient evidence of his existence or claims? Why do we not cower in fear at the possible eternal consequences of not believing in Allah and Mohammad? Why do we only obsess over Jesus' claims, over Jesus' existence, and over Jesus' supposed diety? Why do you?
FightingAtheist
The Gospels of Peter, Barnabus, Mary Magdelene, Thomas, Paul, and on and on. These "gospels" along with other writings are evidence of Jesus, historically, and many of them also tell of Jesus' miracles. All of these writings are non-Biblical. Even the Talmud recognizes the existence and miracles of Jesus.
The other implied assumption is that Christianity is some kind of grand conspiracy placed upon humanity. If you can believe no other miracle, how else can you explain the propagation of Christianity by 11 uneducated men that lived in the backwater of the Roman empire promoting a conspiracy that has lasted 2,000 years? These guys were not royalty or noblemen or even respected by the establishment, they were fishermen and tax collectors and tradesmen.
Do you remember Diogo Pires? How about David Re’uveni? Isaac Luria? Hayim Vital? Unless you are a historian of Europe from the Middle Ages through the Reformation, you wouldn't know how these men influenced the kings of Europe and the Vatican, and were considered to be messiahs by their contemporaries until they were executed or died. The fact that Christianity is still with us is just as profound a miracle as any other miracle recorded in the Bible.
Based on your arguments, I guess our modern public relations and brand image professionals could learn a thing or two from a few Jewish fisherman, a tax collector and a few tradesmen.
Your amazement at how a religious group could survive the ages is misplaced. What of Islam? What of Judaism? What of Buddhism? What of the Greek and Roman religions? In their time one could make the argument that they had withstood the test of time. You cannot know if christianity will still exist a thousand years a hundred years or even a decade from now.
It is obvious the propensity of mankind to want an unseen force interacting with their lives. Had Christianity not survived then we would most likely be having this same argument about another religion.
The fact that christianity still remains with us is a testament to the fact of how indoctrinated we have become. What do you expect when you are told something from birth and discouraged to question it as you grow?
If you had been born in another part of the world then your beliefs would be completely different. This fact alone should be enough to make people aware that their "ultimate" belief and understandings are simply based on their cultural heritage and nothing of divine significance.
If christianity had not survived, something else would have. The real question is why are we continuing the myth? Is humanity too immature to accept that Santa Claus never existed?
Other ideas that survived over time until someone questioned and explored : a flat earth; earth as the center of the universe; disease came from demons; the heart as the center of conscious thought; the stars as gods or souls; the planets were gods; comets were portents of disaster; mars/imperfection on the body were signs of dealings with satan; etc
"The fact that Christianity is still with us is just as profound a miracle as any other miracle recorded in the Bible."
Are you trying to say that because Christanity has been around for so long that is must be true? Time is immaterial. Buddhism has a longer period of recorded history (some 600 years), does that make it even more valid?
"These guys were not royalty or noblemen or even respected by the establishment, they were fishermen and tax collectors and tradesmen."
By this assertion, Christianity seems to have been spread by the uneducated, the ignorant. Does this also mean that must be true? The uneducated tend to beleive without much questioning. I would expect any religious dogma to first be accepted among their ilk.
"I guess what is troubling to me is your selective use of history. Tacticius, Josephus, and others wrote about Jesus, but you are forgetting the dozens of "Gospels" written about Jesus in the decades and centuries after His death and resurrection."
You are trying to use this statement to prove the the divinity of Jesus. "Gospels" written by people who were not even there at the time are not proof. Even those that may have been written during his (Jesus) do not constitute proof as they cannot be verified. Buddha performed many of the same miracles that Jesus is credited with (and did it first). With the same type of documentation, and a lot more of it, do you beleive that Buddha was a deity or at least the son of a deity?
And no I am not a Buddhist. I just use Buddhism as a comparison as there are so many parallels between it and Christianity. (Read "Atheism" by George H Smith. Toward the back it has a rather astounding list of parallels between the life of Jesus and the life of Buddha.)
I apologize for signing in as "Anonymous". I do not yet have an account though I will rectify that here soon enough. I have been reading accounts here for a couple of months now and am ready to join in. My name is Huey Heard and I am an atheist and have been one all of my life. Even as a small child I did not readily accept all of the dogma being thrown at me. It seemed too fantastic and I guess I took to heart my mother's repeated statement of "If little Jimmy jumped off the Empire State Building.....".
I give my name because I am not ashamed or afraid to stand up and be counted for what I am. Even my very devout Christian friends know and accept me for what I am for which I count myself s "blessed". I have been to their church(s) over the years (they invite for special occasions, weddings and such, not because they are trying to convert me) and have never had a problem admitting to the pastor(s) my personal beliefs, even while standing in front of their own pulpits!
I don't really have a conversion story as I am not really an ex-Christian. It almost make me feel unqualified to be here.
Sorry if I seemd to have rambled here. I am trying to do this at work (horror!) and I need to get back at it. Thanks!
The problem, Dee, is that, deriving from your post, you expect that a supernatural being would give some meaning to your life. You expect that the knowledge that such a being exists would give you answers to questions you have about life, the universe and everything.
Lorena wonders:
hmmm! Marion... you read a lot into Dee's tiny paragraph!
I don't buy it. Some obscure document proves the existence of Jesus? That won't cut it for me.
When it comes to history, I believe stories are mythical until proven true without a shadow of a doubt.
Your thoughts are interesting, but they're just thoughts. Thank you for sharing them, though.
Be careful here. As I'm sure you are aware, there is substantial evidence that the passages in Josephus were late interpolations (e.g. nobody cites them until centuries later, the passages break the flow of the commentary, the phrasing is inexplicable coming from a Jew, etc.), and the authenticity/reliability of the Tacitus passages are by no means clear either. If, indeed, the passages are original with Tacitus (or something close to them), there are reasons to doubt that they are anything more than second-hand reports from believers themselves (e.g. he never cites a source, he get some basic facts wrong, etc.).
commonman "...but you are forgetting the dozens of 'Gospels' written about Jesus in the decades and centuries after His death and resurrection."
First, let's be careful about assuming the historicity of the "death and resurrection" if that is the very issue in question. That is, in arguing that these events did indeed take place, one cannot assert that they took place at a specific time and thereby lend credence to the documents that were written about that time; doing so is a basic fallacy. Aside from the gospels, all written in the genre of hagiography, not history, there is absolutely nothing that unequivocally supports these claims. Second, the totality of the gospels written about Jesus do not present a coherent picture of the man or the events. To me, they clearly attest to rampant myth-making. Some of the Jesus cults of the first century viewed Jesus as an ordinary man, others as a purely spiritual being. Clearly many ideas from different traditions were fused together in the making of this one religion. The interesting question, in my mind, is whether there really was a historical Jesus behind it all. (Note: I find it "interesting", although it has little bearing on the development of subsequent myths surrounding Jesus. That is, even if there was a historical Jesus, it lends little support to the fantastic claims of Christianity, as others have pointed out)
commonman "...Even the Talmud recognizes the existence and miracles of Jesus."
I hear this claim quite a bit, but it is never substantiated. The fact is that there are literally hundreds of passages in the Talmud that may or may not refer to Jesus of Nazareth. Unfortunately, the writers of the Talmud used pseudonyms for those they despised (including phrases such as "he who shall not be named"). While there are also many references to people named "Jesus", and many accounts of crucifixion, and many stories of self-proclaimed messiahs, as far as I have been able to determine there is not a single clear reference to Jesus of Nazareth until well into the second century. Those late references do not help to establish the historicity of Jesus, as they are reactions to late Christian claims, not independent corroborating accounts.
commonman "The other implied assumption is that Christianity is some kind of grand conspiracy placed upon humanity..."
Some authors do indeed promote the idea of a grand conspiracy. Personally, I see no reason to suppose there was anything resembling a conspiracy. History is replete with examples of legends that have taken root and grown to enormous proportions without any apparent architects or conspirators behind the movements. In a nutshell, people throughout history have shown an unquenchable fascination with stories of supernatural heroes, and have unwittingly participated in the creation, embellishment, and propagation of such stories. Just look at the best known evangelists of today. Do they feel any need to verify or temper their fantastic stories of conversions, miracle cures, etc.? No, they propagate them with abandon, fully believing (at least some of them) that they are acting as the voice of god. Is there any reason to believe that human nature was different during the first century?
commonman "...I guess our modern public relations and brand image professionals could learn a thing or two from a few Jewish fisherman, a tax collector and a few tradesmen."
Again, you are simply assuming that the current orthodoxy is indeed the true "history" of the religion. There is little to support the idea that Christianity actually arose from the teachings of a great teacher (or prophet, or god-man) and the subsequent spreading of his word through a small band of apostles. This is another very ancient motif shared by many previous religions, and having virtually no independent historical support. What can be pieced together from the first century reveals a far more complex array of beliefs influenced by many different traditions (e.g. Jewish, Mithraic, Hellenistic, etc.), with one particular creed finally gaining ascendency at the hands of Constantine in the 4th century. None of this points unequivocally toward an actual Jesus. None of it compensates for the stunning silence of first-century historians about presumably the most fantastic events in the history of the universe. None of it compensates for the apparent ignorance of Christianity's most influential proponent (Paul) concerning an actual human being named Jesus.
Anyone else?
Not all of us here are exChristians. As hard as I've tried and prayed in my life, my mind would never fully buy into the concept of an invisible man in the sky that sees all, hears all, and knows all. I professed some sort of generic tepid God belief most of my life, but was never a Christian. I always saw organized religions for what they were, man made institutions to control the masses. I have never read more than a few sentences of the Bible, yet I learn so much about it here. How ironic. Coming to this site reinforces what my subconscious always knew. Deep down inside I have always really been an atheist. I was born a skeptic, and it didn't hurt that I had kind and loving parents who let me think for myself.
With the wisdom you seem to pocess, you certainly do belong here. Great post.
xrayman
I have failed too see your reasoning for wasting whatever time you did on this post.I have PROOF,REAL FUCKING PROOF jesus did not exist, allyou have too do is start too travel right? and get this walk into say oh i don't know say 100 churches, take a vidoe camera and see how many limbs grow back, how many poeple are brought back too life. Here is another one take a look at the statistics in OUR OWN COUNTRY and see how many fucking children go to bed STARVING.It really pisses me off when poeple do not use common sense.There are no miracles,there is no "stretching out of hands to be made whole". All there is are sick ass pastors fucking little kids and little girls like jessica lunsford who WAS a xian and beg god not too let that sick fuck (i believe his name is john couey) not too rape her FOR DAYS then only too put her in a black fucking plastic bag and you are trying too prove jesus does'nt exist for what reasons are these not enough.
my bad
When I was a child, I did not look at churches as man-made institutions. That was probably too sophisticated a thought process for me at the time. I do rememeber that when I would ask questions of the church authorities, their answers would leave me believing that "they must think that I am stoopid!". Especially the Mormons (my father was a Mormon, my mother, though a Christian, hated organized religion), they are the weirdest.
I have read the bible but that was about 35 years ago so I don't remeber a lot of details, in fact hardly any. I wholeheartedly agree with you about learning so much here. It is the main reason that I come here daily. It is also entertaining when the fundies join in. (Don't they know how to proof read?)
Again, thanks! It's nice to be here!
But the good news is: you've got a whole, amazingly wonderful, physical universe to explore. You've got 6 billion human beings to choose your friends from.
Why should you want anything beyond that. Who would want an invisible friend when we have such riches?
Marion, what a beautiful thought. Thank you so much for posting this.
This was pretty cute. I suspect you are not an atheist at all but someone who is posing as one and trying to put across the idea that Jesus just might have been real. I believe we've seen this tactic before. The bottom line is that there is absolutely no "first hand" testimony to the reality of Jesus. First hand being testimony composed from the time in question. Josephus would have been the best outside source but any reference he made to Jesus did not surface for several hundred years after he died and the works of Josephus were in "Christian" hands. Secondly most scholars biblical and non accept the probability of forgery in relation to the claim. Without rambling on and on all you have to do is go to a Brittanica and look up Jesus and see if it gives any reference outside the bible to Jesus or any reference to testimony during the time in question.Playing devils advocate if Jesus lived and was not who he is supposed to be then all the more reason to forget him. Try doing a search on Musonius Rufus who really did live.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/musonius.html
Note: the trojan problem is not evident today. I don't know what was wrong yesterday.
Such is the embarrassment of historical documents, they miss the obvious—the great masses. All of us are unimportant unless deemed valuable by others and documented as such.
I would think that if the romans got wind of a man that could feed,heal, and make wine out of water, They would have inslaved him to feed, heal, and make wine for their army.
This doesn't prove he didn't exist, however, there is no disagreement that Christianity sprung up and a belief in a historical Jesus sprung up as well, making it easy for later historians to observe Christians, and know their story of a historical Jesus (which doesn't mean a historical Jesus existed).
My stance right now is that Jesus never existed but was a Gnostic invention of Paul that over time morphed into a real person adding many myths and stories that were prevalent at the time.
Post a Comment