What type of atheist are you?

JCB

"The Gospel accounts are not primary evidence because none of the writers were present for any of the events of Jesus' life (if he did exist). "

I read this in the 'Could religion die' thread and it just reminded me of how different atheists i have spoken to had different views of Jesus, his life and existence.

So i ask the members of this forum how do you classify yourselves when it comes to Jesus? Did He exist? Was it all a lie? Was He the Son of God?

P.s. Forgive me if I offend with the title 'type of atheist',

P.p.s. I should point out that John (one of the writers of the Gospels) was present for the events of Jesus' life btw (he was one of His Apostles), so the quote above could be inaccurate.

tba

There could well have been a person called Jesus, when he lived or how he lived is a subject of discourse, but I think you will find, that regardless of what "type of atheist" you encounter you will not find one who thinks that he was in anyway divine, rose from the dead or preformed miracles.

Rev Hellfire

What has Jesus got to do with been an atheist ?
Surely this should be what sort of Christian are you ?

JCB

Surely if one is an atheist, he must at least have an opinion on the most popular religion, how else could you reject it?
You must have some view on the life of Jesus in order to reject his teachings or else how could one be an informed atheist? This is specifically relevant to those who converted to atheism versus those who were born into atheist families.

Wreck

Jesus lived, a good man, but didn't claim to be God

I don't know whether Jesus lived or not, or whether he was good or misguided or insane or whatever. I did vote for the evil option though, just cause the whole poll is so meaningless.

tba

Certain elements of the teachings of jesus are things atheists agree with, but no atheist rejects these teachings, we reject the concept that they are guides given to us by a higher being, and instead choose to judge these rules on their own merit and our own moral reasoning.

Hence I believe that you should not kill other people, but not because a god told me.

JCB

To wreck:

It is because you don't know that you must have an opinion, or a theory as it were.

This poll is a lot more relevant and meaningful than you realise, here's why...

Jesus lived c.2000 years ago and is, as he claimed, Son of God.

This is a statement. Christians agree with it. Others do not.

Possible Reason not to agree includes...
There is another prophet/God...... i.e. = a theist

But what about those who are atheists?
Hence the poll options above.

robindch

It's been done before, but not on a separate thread that I recall.

IMHO, Jesus probably did exist, but the accounts that we have of his life and work are probably largely fictitious -- biographies at the time tended to be notoriously one-sided and I don't see why Jesus' one should be any different. Similarly, the stories we have about Jesus tend to be common to other religious figures and earlier times and places and little that's in the NT is genuinely original. Of the NT that I've read, the Greek of the NT is far simpler and more mundane than the Greek of great authors of several centuries earlier (with the exception of bits of John), and reads very much like simple, inaccurate accounts provided by largely uneducated writers concerning things they did not understand. Neither are many of the things which Jesus is quoted or doing is very original or very profound, and when compared (again) to the earlier authors, they really are mundane and uninteresting. His reputation as a thinker of earth-shattering insights is thoroughly undeserved.

Furthermore, we've no convincing evidence that any of the accounts that we have are actually the accounts that were written by eye-witnesses, or recorded from them. Just tradition, some very shaky logic and the existence of a lot of early writers with a lot to gain, and little to lose by altering or dressing up the texts they produced.

JCB wrote:

You must have some view on the life of Jesus in order to reject his teachings or else how could one be an informed atheist?

And why do you reject the teachings of Mohammad or Hinduism, Thor, Jupiter, Zeus and so on? Is your atheism with respect to those gods an informed atheism or are you just defaulting, as we all do as children, to being a Thor-atheist?

JCB

tba wrote: »

Certain elements of the teachings of jesus are things atheists agree with, but no atheist rejects these teachings, we reject the concept that they are guides given to us by a higher being, and instead choose to judge these rules on their own merit and our own moral reasoning.

Hence I believe that you should not kill other people, but not because a god told me.

Not arguing with what you said but your reply alone shows why this poll is necessary.

You mentioned the 'teachings of Jesus'. Some atheists don't even agree with you thus far, those who think that Jesus never existed.

Your post implies that you believe that Jesus existed.
Now, why do you think he is not God? The poll above tries to provide some reasons....

tba

Well, no the teachings of Jesus do not prove his existence, Santa tells you to be nice or you won't get a present, that doesn't mean you should stop being nice when the awful truth is discovered.

JCB

robindch wrote: »

And why do you reject the teachings of Mohammad or Hinduism, Thor, Jupiter, Zeus and so on? Is your atheism with respect to those gods an informed atheism or are you just defaulting, as we all do as children, to being a Thor-atheist?

You see people of other religions have their own 'belief' to reject the teachings of Jesus. But what about atheists?
I can't see how they but fit into the above catagories or else are 'uncertain'.

JCB

tba wrote: »

Well, no the teachings of Jesus do not prove his existence, Santa tells you to be nice or you won't get a present, that doesn't mean you should stop being nice when the awful truth is discovered.

So i'll ask you up front,
Do you believe Jesus existed?
Yes/No/Uncertain

tba

I have no idea.
I do know the bible exists.

I also reckon some of it could be true, but which parts are irrelevant.

If Jesus was in some strange way debunked as a real person beyond a shadow of a doubt, I would hope that Christians around the world would retain some of the decency taught in elements of the new testament and not disregard them because all of a sudden they were off the hook, from the loose term of teachings.

Dave!

Jesus lived and was God

Have no problem with the notion that Jesus existed. He was not divine, however.

Schuhart

Whatever happened to Atari Jaguar?

I haven't voted because I don't see an option i can really go with. I reckon Jesus probably existed, and I take the Gospels to be the record of his career made by his followers who I don't doubt believed the essential truth of what they wrote. That's not to say I think miracles happened or anything like that.

But I honestly don't have an opinion on whether Jesus claimed to be the son of God. I assume that his followers came to believe that he was - I simply don't know if he claimed this for himself.

lookinforpicnic

JCB wrote: »

Surely if one is an atheist, he must at least have an opinion on the most popular religion, how else could you reject it?
You must have some view on the life of Jesus in order to reject his teachings or else how could one be an informed atheist? This is specifically relevant to those who converted to atheism versus those who were born into atheist families.

Whether Jesus existed or not (or was good/evil) is completely irrelevant to atheism. To be an informed atheist (even with a christian upbringing) you just have to realize that there is zero evidence for a supreme being, and mountains of evidence that the world and life arose through completely natural means.

The questions are ridiculous: Lets see.. why don't I choose the type of atheist who beliefs Jesus lived and was god..??? what..?

bleg

another option for "I don't know whether Jesus existed or not but he was not the manifestation of god"

Dades

Jesus lived and was God

bleg wrote: »

another option for "I don't know whether Jesus existed or not but he was not the manifestation of god"

If that was there I'd have voted for that!

Okay so the question may not tell us anything about atheism (what's to know?) but I suppose it might give a rough idea about what people think Jesus was (or wasn't). Pointless maybe, but that's nothing new here - just ask Kelly1.

Sangre

JCB wrote: »

You must have some view on the life of Jesus in order to reject his teachings or else how could one be an informed atheist? This is specifically relevant to those who converted to atheism versus those who were born into atheist families.

What have teachings got to do with being an atheist? You either believe in a divine being or you don't. Whether this being teaches love and good will or vengeance and spite (or both in some cases) is not really irrelevant to the point. Top notch teachings isn't proof they were ordained by god.

I could live my life completely by the teachings of Jesus but completely reject his divinity.

robindch

JCB wrote:

You see people of other religions have their own 'belief' to reject the teachings of Jesus. But what about atheists?

Er, did you actually read any of what I wrote? That will tell you why I reject what christians say about Jesus. It's got nothing to do with religions.

And to belabor the point somewhat, just because I reject Jesus doesn't mean that I have to believe somebody else's religious stories in his place. Any more than I have to collect coins because I don't collect stamps or drink bourbon because I don't like whiskey.

JCB

tba wrote:

If Jesus was in some strange way debunked as a real person beyond a shadow of a doubt, I would hope that Christians around the world would retain some of the decency taught in elements of the new testament and not disregard them because all of a sudden they were off the hook, from the loose term of teachings.

Ok?

Schuhart wrote:

Whatever happened to Atari Jaguar?

I haven't voted because I don't see an option i can really go with. I reckon Jesus probably existed, and I take the Gospels to be the record of his career made by his followers who I don't doubt believed the essential truth of what they wrote. That's not to say I think miracles happened or anything like that.

But I honestly don't have an opinion on whether Jesus claimed to be the son of God. I assume that his followers came to believe that he was - I simply don't know if he claimed this for himself.

First, I admit I screwed up the poll options, forgive me.

My question asked for your viewpoint, opinion, not fact. I can't prove Jesus existed to the extent you require so all i am asking is what stance you take on the matter, considering its importance.
I am asking you for probabilities, which I know is difficult for those who require absolute proof.
If i were to make inferences from your post, first you believe that Jesus existed, you believe He was good, so that leaves two options, either He claimed to be God or He didn't. Which do you think? The Gospels said He did? Do you accept that or not? This is a grey area, which is why I ask the question in the first place. The division in the poll already highlights the difference of opinion.

lookinforpicnic wrote:

Whether Jesus existed or not (or was good/evil) is completely irrelevant to atheism. To be an informed atheist (even with a christian upbringing) you just have to realize that there is zero evidence for a supreme being, and mountains of evidence that the world and life arose through completely natural means.

The questions are ridiculous: Lets see.. why don't I choose the type of atheist who beliefs Jesus lived and was god..??? what..?

Again you reference to "zero evidence for a supreme being". Well is there? I take the life of Jesus as a case in point. Did he exist? Some atheists say yes some say no - split of views, different 'types' you could say.
Then I provide subdivisions for those who believe he existed. In one way I am trying to figure out how the atheists come to the conclusion of "zero evidence" when it comes to Jesus, how many hurdles is each one willing to jump as it were.
I don't accept that an atheist can only use the 'no God of creation' argument to reject all religions. People didn't witness creation, we don't know for definate. Each religion provides a possible conection between a spiritual world and the Earth. They can't be just ignored. Hence an 'informed atheist' would have considered and rejected these possibilities. Thus, one would have an opinion on Jesus' life.

bleg wrote:

another option for "I don't know whether Jesus existed or not but he was not the manifestation of god"

How could Jesus be a manifestation of God if He didn't exist? There is an implied decision to be made before one can use that option. i.e. did He exist? As an atheist, wouldn't you want to know if this 'Son of God' was real before coming to the conclusion that there is no God?
P.s Before I get the stock answer of 'mountains of evidence that the world and life arose through completely natural means'...etc... we can never know the full picture, we didn't witness it. how many times in the past have unassailable theories proven to be false?

Sangre wrote:

What have teachings got to do with being an atheist? You either believe in a divine being or you don't. Whether this being teaches love and good will or vengeance and spite (or both in some cases) is not really irrelevant to the point. Top notch teachings isn't proof they were ordained by god.

I could live my life completely by the teachings of Jesus but completely reject his divinity.

I totally agree. Whether Jesus teaches love, spite, goodwill etc.. is irrelevant to this argument. Your contribution is much appreciated.
What I am trying to achieve is the reason(s) why atheists reject His teachings on being God.

robindch wrote:

Er, did you actually read any of what I wrote? That will tell you why I reject what christians say about Jesus. It's got nothing to do with religions.

And to belabor the point somewhat, just because I reject Jesus doesn't mean that I have to believe somebody else's religious stories in his place. Any more than I have to collect coins because I don't collect stamps or drink bourbon because I don't like whiskey.

In fact I reread your post several times to enjoy its subtle nuances. Did you do the same with mine?
I do accept that you can reject the teachings of Jesus and not choose an alternative religion. But when one believes in a religion, it is an alternative belief in God to counteract the teachings of Jesus. When one is an atheist, there is no belief in God i.e. no alternative, hence I would like to know why they reject His teaching. You appear to believe He existed, grand some don't, you appear to believe He was a good man, super some don't, you appear to have difficulty in believing the Gospels accounts, ok, but do you think He claimed to be God or not? The Gospels say He did, do you agree? I've met atheists who think He did and others who think He did not.

JCB

To leave you with a parting thought....
Scenario:
2000 years ago.
You met Jesus, you saw His miracles and were awestruck being in the presence of God.
Jesus askes you to prove His existence to skeptics 2000 years into the future.
You are poor, you cannot write, you have no access to recording technology.
How do you achieve this?
You tell those around you of the goodness you have witnessed and spread the good news. Some educated people record this oral tradition to be complied into the New Testament which is to be argued upon many years later.

I ask you, how would you have achieved this goal better at that time?
Do you understand how difficult it is to subject this to scientific analysis?

Sangre

I'd ask him to reveal himself again 2000 years later.

Scofflaw

JCB wrote: »

To leave you with a parting thought....
Scenario:
2000 years ago.
You met Jesus, you saw His miracles and were awestruck being in the presence of God.
Jesus askes you to prove His existence to skeptics 2000 years into the future.
You are poor, you cannot write, you have no access to recording technology.
How do you achieve this?
You tell those around you of the goodness you have witnessed and spread the good news. Some educated people record this oral tradition to be complied into the New Testament which is to be argued upon many years later.

I ask you, how would you have achieved this goal better at that time?
Do you understand how difficult it is to subject this to scientific analysis?

Scenario: I have a vital, but somewhat complex message for everyone who will be attending a show. I turn up early to the show, when there's a few hundred people there, and explain my complex message to a toddler. The child draws some strange-looking pictures, and memorises a couple of words, and part-phrases.

By doing this I feel I have adequately provided for the thousands and thousands of adults who will come to the show later.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JCB

Scofflaw wrote: »

Scenario: I have a vital, but somewhat complex message for everyone who will be attending a show. I turn up early to the show, when there's a few hundred people there, and explain my complex message to a toddler. The child draws some strange-looking pictures, and memorises a couple of words, and part-phrases.

By doing this I feel I have adequately provided for the thousands and thousands of teenagers who will come to the show later.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Was the message understood by the toddler? Yes
Was the message accepted by the toddler? No
Would the message be accepted by the stoppy, arrogant teenager? Highly unlikely

Sangre wrote:

I'd ask him to reveal himself again 2000 years later.

Perhaps 'Atheism' should be renamed the Society of the Doubting Thomas?

Scofflaw

JCB wrote: »

Was the message understood by the toddler? Yes
Was the message accepted by the toddler? No
Would the message be accepted by the stoppy, arrogant teenager? Highly unlikely

Hmm. While I can see why you would rework it that way, I feel it doesn't address the basic point, since the story was an analogy. It looks instead like a decision to dismiss those who don't accept the Christian message as immature.

JCB wrote: »

Perhaps 'Atheism' should be renamed the Society of the Doubting Thomas?

Because atheism is a specifically Christian phenomenon? Or because we are simply waiting to be convinced?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Jesus lived, but was evil and lied about being God

Worst poll ever.



I voted number 1. I have no doubt there was a figure called Jesus around that time...there were in fact several. However, I don't believe for a second that the Jesus presented in the Gospels existed as he is portrayed.


Not that my opinion on Jesus has anything at all to do with my lack of belief in Gods.

Dave!

Jesus lived and was God

the Society of the Doubting Thomas

I kinda like that...

Hagar

JCB wrote: »

Surely if one is an atheist, he must at least have an opinion on the most popular religion, how else could you reject it?

That's a funny notion. I am not an atheist because I reject any or all religions.
I simply don't believe in god because there is no god to believe in.
I don't need to benchmark my non-belief against anyone else's belief.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote: »

Worst poll ever.

I voted number 1. I have no doubt there was a figure called Jesus around that time...there were in fact several. However, I don't believe for a second that the Jesus presented in the Gospels existed as he is portrayed.


Not that my opinion on Jesus has anything at all to do with my lack of belief in Gods.

I'd second the above, pretty much. There is a frequent Christian assumption that once you accept Jesus existed, the obvious next step is be a Christian.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Jesus lived and was God

JCB wrote: »

Perhaps 'Atheism' should be renamed the Society of the Doubting Thomas?

Fair play to Thomas (had he ever existed), but that title suggests (a) atheism is a society, and (b) it relates essentially to Christianity.

Neither of which is true, of course.

Scofflaw

JCB wrote: »

I do accept that you can reject the teachings of Jesus and not choose an alternative religion. But when one believes in a religion, it is an alternative belief in God to counteract the teachings of Jesus. When one is an atheist, there is no belief in God i.e. no alternative, hence I would like to know why they reject His teaching.

I feel you should win some kind of prize for this statement. It is either rather badly put, or exquisitely prejudiced.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

JCB - While you're asking us questions, how about answering a couple yourself?

1 - Mohammed - do you believe he existed and was God's true and final prophet or was he a liar or a madman?

2 - Joseph Smith - do you believe he existed and was led to Golden plates dictated by God or was he a liar or a madman?

P.p.s. I should point out that John (one of the writers of the Gospels) was present for the events of Jesus' life btw (he was one of His Apostles), so the quote above could be inaccurate.

I know that religious people take pride in believing the most unbelievable things 'on faith', but most biblical scholars would disagree with this, John is not John the apostle, but is by an anonymous writer circa 90-100 CE.

lookinforpicnic

JCB wrote: »

Did he exist? Some atheists say yes some say no - split of views, different 'types' you could say.

Not different 'types' different opinions on a christian story. Most atheists I'd imagine take robindch's, Zillahs or blegs opinion. I'd take bleg's, (and I don't in the least bit care to know anymore as I said already it is irrelevant to my belief that there is no god, i'm not going to spend time researching every quack that thinks he/she is divine, if i was going to spend time on atheism i'd research why people (such as yourself) belief such rubbish or why simplistic nonsensically religiously explanations evolve and persist etc etc).

JCB wrote: »

Then I provide subdivisions for those who believe he existed. In one way I am trying to figure out how the atheists come to the conclusion of "zero evidence" when it comes to Jesus

Jesus is irrelevant.. its a just a story (typical of any folk or organized religion), fledging atheists don't weigh up jesus's teachings and decide if they come from god or not??..they weigh up the idea of a god and decide there is none (for many different reasons, which more than likely had absolutely nothing to do with a man from the middle east)

JCB wrote: »

I don't accept that an atheist can only use the 'no God of creation' argument to reject all religions...They can't be just ignored. Hence an 'informed atheist' would have considered and rejected these possibilities. Thus, one would have an opinion on Jesus' life.

He can use whatever argument he likes again it has nothing to do with whether jesus existed or not (or what he said or done), the details of the man talked about in the bible are about as relevant as the details of the ink used to write it.

Pompey Magnus

Jesus lived, but was evil and lied about being God

Wow, in the space of about 2 years I have evolved through prety much all the options given in the poll, from a pretty strong Catholic who believed "Jesus lived and was God" to "Jesus lived, a good man, but misguided/lied about being God" to "Jesus lived, but was evil and lied about being God" to todays "I don't believe Jesus existed".

If Jesus did exist and knew himself he wasn't God I would say it is a pretty evil thing to do to tell his followers they must leave their families to follow him. This would only be justifiable (and in second thoughts maybe not even be) if he actually was God, as a non-divine Jesus would be taking fathers from their children and husbands from their wives in what was essentially a massive ego trip. But I now would be leaning towards the idea that Jesus never existed and originally Jesus had been believed to been operating on a higher plane and never actually existed on Earth, this belief developed later.

CerebralCortex

Jesus lived, a good man, but misguided/lied about being God

I believe a very influential and intelligent man called Jesus may have existed and that perhaps his message may have been seriously corrupted along the way. Seems plausible. To me.

Sangre

JCB wrote: »

Perhaps 'Atheism' should be renamed the Society of the Doubting Thomas?

I'd simply point out to Jesus that if he was in anyway serious about having his message heard by all mankind he would do so at a time where communication and travel made the globe a very small place. Our increased ability to verify his claims of divinity would merely be a bonus.

As an aside the notion of the 'doubting Thomas' was one of my first 'thats not right' concepts about Christianity. I thought it was a bit harsh to judge a guy for asking for some evidence that someone rose from the dead 3 days later. Its not like he rejected Jesus once he saw him with his own eyes. For all he knew his friends were delirious with grief.That and the 'blessed are those who believe without seeing' thing, I always thought that was particularly silly.

Dades

Jesus lived and was God

Doubting "Straw Man" Thomas?

PDN

Sangre wrote: »

As an aside the notion of the 'doubting Thomas' was one of my first 'thats not right' concepts about Christianity. I thought it was a bit harsh to judge a guy for asking for some evidence that someone rose from the dead 3 days later.

Harsh? It's not like Jesus kicked his ass or anything. All Jesus did was invite him to touch His wounds to verify it was really Him, and then to explain the importance of faith - that if we really believe in God then we trust His Word even when we don't see the results yet. Hardly harsh in anyone's book, I would have thought.

Sangre

Not Jesus being harsh but the attitude towards him through out the ages. He even has his own phrase.

pH

Sangre wrote: »

Not Jesus being harsh but the attitude towards him through out the ages. He even has his own phrase.

It's designed to make believers feel ashamed when they doubt, by providing the archetypical doubter, who (according to the bible) was wrong to doubt.

The idea then is for Christians transfer this idea to all doubters (about their Christian beliefs - obviously all the stuff that those other religions believe is nonsense because it's not in the bible).

Doubting Thomas didn't believe and he was wrong and ashamed.
Therefore if you doubt - you are wrong (and therefore should feel ashamed)

'Doubting Thomas' is a core part of the Christian "Don't ask for evidence, We don't provide it" doctrine.

Hivemind187

With the sole intent of humour - I am not going to comment about my feelings towards a biblically accounted Christ

Talon1977

pH wrote: »

It's designed to make believers feel ashamed when they doubt, by providing the archetypical doubter, who (according to the bible) was wrong to doubt.

The idea then is for Christians transfer this idea to all doubters (about their Christian beliefs - obviously all the stuff that those other religions believe is nonsense because it's not in the bible).

Doubting Thomas didn't believe and he was wrong and ashamed.
Therefore if you doubt - you are wrong (and therefore should feel ashamed)

'Doubting Thomas' is a core part of the Christian "Don't ask for evidence, We don't provide it" doctrine.

I completely disagree. No offense, but Thomas was not in the wrong for doubting. He rightly said, "let me touch the holes in his hands and feet and I'll believe."

I think we all need to have the same attitude. Blind faith is not something to be promoted. Blind faith has not been the over-arching tenet of the church throughout history. It may have been the answer given by the MOST clergy, simply because it takes effort and intellect to dig deeper into it. But the answers given by the GREATEST clergy in history have always criticized blind faith. Augustine of Hippo criticized his own mother for having too simple a faith. Luther and Calvin both went increasingly deeper in understanding and promoted logic and reason.

When Thomas verified that it really was Jesus, he was struck by a deep conviction, falling at the feet of Jesus and exclaiming "My Lord, and My God!"

My point is that doubt and the demand for evidence is not wrong at all. In most cases, it leads one to a deeper and more vibrant faith.

Scofflaw

Talon1977 wrote: »

I completely disagree. No offense, but Thomas was not in the wrong for doubting. He rightly said, "let me touch the holes in his hands and feet and I'll believe."

I think we all need to have the same attitude. Blind faith is not something to be promoted. Blind faith has not been the over-arching tenet of the church throughout history. It may have been the answer given by the MOST clergy, simply because it takes effort and intellect to dig deeper into it. But the answers given by the GREATEST clergy in history have always criticized blind faith. Augustine of Hippo criticized his own mother for having too simple a faith. Luther and Calvin both went increasingly deeper in understanding and promoted logic and reason.

When Thomas verified that it really was Jesus, he was struck by a deep conviction, falling at the feet of Jesus and exclaiming "My Lord, and My God!"

My point is that doubt and the demand for evidence is not wrong at all. In most cases, it leads one to a deeper and more vibrant faith.

I suspect it depends very heavily on who initially tells you the story. My Catholic teacher (CoE school, so we got specific Catholic classes if we were registered Catholics) appeared to approve of Thomas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SubjectSean

Jesus lived, a good man, but misguided/lied about being God

All the founders of the worlds major religions existed. It's a bit daft to think otherwise, do the doubters doubt the existence of Plato or Lao Tzu? I don't really think any of these mystics claimed to be God. That would be a silly thing to do wouldn't it? "Look at me everybody I'm God", "Clearly not, we went to school with you" everybody would say. Some of the mystics might have claimed to be one with God. The sheeps of Jesus appear to have misconstrued this for whatever reasons.

SubjectSean

Jesus lived, a good man, but misguided/lied about being God

Scofflaw wrote: »

I suspect it depends very heavily on who initially tells you the story. My Catholic teacher (CoE school, so we got specific Catholic classes if we were registered Catholics) appeared to approve of Thomas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So it appears from a theological standpoint anyway that God will not condemn skeptics who demand the same level of proof as Thomas. Although the caveat about less stringent fools being happy no doubt remains in place.

Zillah

Jesus lived, but was evil and lied about being God

SubjectSean wrote: »

All the founders of the worlds major religions existed.

Yes, but the founder of Christianity was not neccessarily Jesus, or the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels. It could be argued that the founders of Christianity as we know it were a small group of crazy jews who took the teachings of an obscure Israelite hippy and turned it into something it wasn't.

Red Hand

Well, it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other whether Jesus existed or not.

Likewise, it doesn't really matter whether St Patrick existed or not.

stereoroid

Haven't researched the topic thoroughly enough to tell between some of those options. I'd be a bit wary, as an atheist, of calling any person "evil", however - don't really believe in the concept of "evil".

Scofflaw

SubjectSean wrote: »

All the founders of the worlds major religions existed. It's a bit daft to think otherwise, do the doubters doubt the existence of Plato or Lao Tzu? I don't really think any of these mystics claimed to be God. That would be a silly thing to do wouldn't it? "Look at me everybody I'm God", "Clearly not, we went to school with you" everybody would say. Some of the mystics might have claimed to be one with God. The sheeps of Jesus appear to have misconstrued this for whatever reasons.

Actually, Lao Tzu is pretty doubtful, although Plato is well attested.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Talon1977

SubjectSean wrote:

I don't really think any of these mystics claimed to be God. That would be a silly thing to do wouldn't it? "Look at me everybody I'm God", "Clearly not, we went to school with you" everybody would say.

That's actually what we see. One of the first things the skeptical Jews around Jesus said was "Isn't this Joseph's son, the carpenter?" And one witty chap went so far as to exclaim "Can anything good come from Nazareth??" Apparently Nazareth was sort of the armpit of Israel.

The sheeps of Jesus appear to have misconstrued this for whatever reasons.

As I've said before, the testimony of all 4 of the gospels attests to his divinity. Unless you're claiming that the texts do not accurately portray what Jesus actually said about himself (which is a baseless claim), there's no real argument about what he meant and the implications of what he said, as well as how the Jews of his day took it.