Atheists: Do you necessarily dispute that a human being called Jesus (now or then) ever lived?

Question

I'm not a believer by the way. But I want to know that your being an Atheist include disputing that somebody known as Jesus ever walked on hte earth's shores!

Answer 1

Well there are a number of atheists (some of them prominent) who think there may have been a real Jesus and that he might have been an influential leader who was killed. However that doesn't make him the son of god (he apparently only ever referred to himself as the son of man and was anti-religion).

Personally, the incredible and undeniable similarity between Jesus and many other gods who came before really indicate that Jesus was made up based on archetypes of the hero story (Born from a virgin on Dec 25, star appeared at birth, visited by magi from the east, rode in to town on donkeys, walked on water, turned water to wine, had apostles, was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, had a last supper where he offered food as his body and wine as his blood, nailed to a cross or tree, came back to life 3 days later - ALL of these things happened to other gods in other stories centuries or even thousands of years before). The Jesus story was in a way plagiarized, and it was nothing new.

Also there's the huge gap between his alleged life and the writing of the gospels (more than 40 years) and the only man (Paul of Tarsus) spreading the word back in that time of the god he called "Christ Jesus" only knew about the death and resurrection, nothing else and he believed Christ Jesus lived and died in a mythical realm (like Olympia) not on Earth. (If Jesus had been on Earth he would not have even been a priest - Hebrews 8:4).

To make things even shakier figurative and symbolic literature was huge back then, and it's almost certain that Mark and the others didn't think they were writing history but a symbolic message - a gospel.

So the existence of Jesus is so shaky and speculative (unlike other historical figures like Caeser) where I think atheists are better off thinking he never existed.

Answer 2

Being an atheist does not dispute scientific fact. There probably was a 99% chance that there was a man named Jesus, In fact I know a few that live in Mexico today. Then again I dispute that I may not have lived yesterday, how the heck do we know anything for sure. Even if you see something with your own eyes does that prove as fact? No, are we alive or dead? What is life what is death? What is time and place? We can only hear a fraction of the sound frequencies and sound spectrum but do we dispute, no they are backed up by scientific fact? But they are scientist becuase the average joe couldn't figure out infared or subsonic sound? Just like you believe in your preacher, pastor, pope or rabbi... Did he see God, did you see God, did I see god and not tell you, yesterday?

Answer 3

I've always pretty much believed that he was a real person. It makes sense to me that there was a man walking around who people began to follow believing he was the Messiah. It's why Christianity exists. Even if someone 'made up' the part about him being the Messiah, they would have at least had to point out a man and say 'that's him'. I don't know what the man's name actually was or if any of the details about him are true except that he lived in that area, spoke to people and had fans.

My issue with it is that everyone was Jewish at the time and the Jewish people were already expecting the Messiah to come at some point anyway. It's possible they overreacted and picked the wrong guy. That type of stuff still happens today. Random people crop up here and there and some people start to believe they are the Messiah.

Answer 4

I answer this not as an Atheist, you make it sound like a religion ,instead of a disbelief in deities and the supernatural, I answer as an open minded human being who is willing to listen to, and learn from rational argument.

Recently some old guy in Italy tried to take the Catholic Church to court, because it is illegal there to claim that someone existed when they did not. (google it for yourself)
Because of the furore it would cause in this staunchly catholic country the case was not allowed to proceed very far.
But, get this, when the Catholic Church was asked to provide evidence that Jesus was a real historical figure, they couldn't. There is no evidence whatsoever outside of the bible for the existence of Jesus Christ.

Known historical data does not match any of the biblical evidence, Even Nazareth was not built until after he was supposed to have died.

Then look at his ministry, get your bibles and maps of the holy land out, trace his journeys, the places were his miracles took place, deduct the time he spent in the desert and locked up.
Now tell me how could he have traveled those distances, in that short time, mostly by foot. Remember at no time does it say that either Jesus or God used divine powers to move him around.
Jesus was an invented Character, he was supposed to have duplicated the miracles of the old testament Prophets proving that he was the Jewish messiah.
This has been extensively researched and proved, but of course those of the Christian faith will never accept that Paul's Church was founded on a fake.
Just like they forget that Paul (who never knew Jesus) founded the Christian church, not Jesus Christ

Blind faith Vs reality.

Answer 5

Some do. Outside of the New Testament, the only historical witnesses to the existence of Jesus are references to the actions of his "followers" or accounts that appear to have been redacted by Christians. It is possible to hypothesize that the story was concocted as a way to freshen up the Jewish faith with some Mystery Religion elements for mass consumption. ("Why" would be a separate question.) The "eye witnesses" would be all that would be needed to spread the message.

But likely no atheist objects to the idea that someone named "Jesus" may have existed at the time indicated and done something to draw local attention to himself. What he did and how he was perceived by the actual witnesses would be the subject of debate.

There are geographical and cultural errors in the gospels, indicating that the evangelists were not eye witnesses to Jesus, but I'm sure they conscientiously arranged and wrote the information they were given. They just had no way to verify what everyone "knew".

Answer 6

It's well documented that he existed and it's pretty much beyond debate. The nature of his existence is the question.

Like many (or all) religious stories, the truth lies in perception. What is a miracle? Is it magic, or could a miracle simply be the perception of a miracle?

By virtue of Jesus' work (real or perceived,) people strive to live differently and do good works 2,000 years after his birth. Is that alone a miracle? It depends on who you ask (as with just about anything.)

I'm not one to get into religious dogma. It was written by men and is certainly fallible. The stories are morality plays designed to teach less sophisticated people to function in a society. The moral of 'treat others as you would be treated' is a fundamental part of a thriving socieity.

Don't confuse Christianity with the weapon that scumbag politicians and evangelists use to manipulate people. If there is a Hell those people are going to the deepest part.

Answer 7

It is possible that Jesus did not exist. Some say he did not but he likely did.

I also don't think the bible has changed much over time, at least not in a significant way. The bible doesn’t have to be divinely inspired in order to do that, just look at Plato’s Republic and it is also the same text and much older then the bible.

How do you read the bible, literally or figuratively? Because all Christian switch back and forth between both depending on what they are talking about. I prefer to take the bible literally because the hate christ had towards humans and life itself is more obvious.

Answer 8

Certainly there have been people named Jesus. I saw one on The People's Court just yesterday.

But there's very little evidence that all the stories in the new testament purported to be about a single person named Jesus are true and are referring to the same individual. It's more plausible that the crucifixion story (the torture and death, not the coming back to life) has true elements in it than the Christmas stories. The virgin birth and magis and all that was constructed long after the fact to prove that Jesus had fulfilled prophecies of a messiah.

Answer 9

I'm an atheist, but have assumed that Jesus was an actual person. But it's almost irrelevant. When you take away the aspects of Jesus that Christians think are most important (born from a virgin, walks on water, creates bread and fish out of thin air, etc.), there obviously wasn't any man who fits *that* description.

Several months ago, however, I bought and watched the following documentary, which does seriously question his existence:

"The God Who Wasn't There"
http://www.thegodmovie.com/

The most convincing scene features a scholar who reads a list of characteristics of mythical heroes, and Jesus' profile included many of those. The DVD features extended interviews with Sam Harris, and although his philosophy is dubious, he is a great ellucidator on the subject of atheism.

Answer 10

There is no credible evidence to support the existence of such a person. None.
There is ONE sentence in a work by Josephus and that has long been known to be an 11th century forgery.
In fact, the first time the name Jesus Christ was mentioned and written down was at the council of Nicea. And that was 320 years after the supposed death of this demi-god.
It's mythology, nothing more.