Atheists, do you believe that Jesus was not very enlightened?

Question

I just saw someone claim this and was wondering if this belief was widespread among atheists.

From what you know of Jesus of Nazareth, would you say He was unenlightened?

Nice dodge, "just curious". ;-)

Answer 1

If he lived at all, if we can buy the biblical account, then he was enlightened.
Even if you buy the account, could be he was just a man, like the rest of us.
I think his power and worth is because he was a man. Each of us can stand up for what we believe, help the poor, live simply and in our "hearts." We can live and die for what is important to us. We can die because we are betrayed by our "friends."
This message seems to be important enough to have survived in several religious traditions.

Answer 2

From what I've read about Jesus, I would say he's a fictional character. Also, there was no town by the name of Nazareth at the time Jesus purportedly lived.

* * *
Did a historical Jesus exist?
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
[Excerpt]

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

* * *
The Myth of the Historical Jesus
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

Do Any First Century Historians Mention the Jesus of Christianity?
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html

Pagan origins of Jesus:
http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index.html
http://geocities.com/christprise/
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/pcc/pcc09.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa3.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/virgin.html
http://www.harrington-sites.com/motif.htm
http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa052902a.htm
http://www.apollonius.net/bernard1e.html

http://www.bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm
"Page 102 - Puzzle 2: The Existence of Nazareth
"McRay claims that skeptics are wrong in insisting that Nazareth didn't exist as a town during the time Christ presumably lived. This is a half-truth. The town existed. There's no doubt about that. It was a tiny rural hamlet. The problem is that it wasn't known by that name. It was actually a tiny, unnamed collection of about a dozen huts near the town of Gat-Hyefer, and was never known by the name of Nazareth until it was picked by a fifth-century Christian Roman emperor to be Nazareth, because he was embarrassed by the fact that no town by that name actually existed. Anyway, McRay says there is recent archaeological evidence (without citing it) that shows that after the destruction of the Second Temple, some of the temple priests were relocated there. Whether that is true doesn't matter. In any event, what is known is that it certainly was a very small and inconspicuous settlement that wasn't called Nazareth. And neither was any other town in Galilee at that time."
.

Answer 3

I see no point in pondering over the relative enlightenedness of a fictional character.

There is no historical evidence that a real person named Jesus, fitting Jesus' description, ever existed in the place and time that Jesus was said to exist. In fact, there is plenty of historical evidence that Jesus was a made-up character. Made up with the best of intentions, to be sure, but still false for all that.

Even taking into account his fictional nature, for Jesus' time some of the things he taught were "enlightened" relative to the time. Other things were spot on with what people probably believed at that time and therefore those things more closely resembled propaganda than enlightenment. Is Jesus enlightened by today's standards? Barely. Only in a few passages of the NT. In others, he looks like the barbarian he was.

Answer 4

I believe that the bible is a very unreliable account of history. But I believe that Jesus did truly existed. I think that compared to others in his time - he is most enlightened and more advanced in knowledge. In the end he still fall victim to mysticism.

edit: as a response to one of the post above. Atheism not a lack of belief in Jesus or biblical teachings - it's a lack of belief in god.

Answer 5

This is a tough question.

The problem with Jesus is that it's hard to actually know what he is like since he didn't write anything himself, what we know about Jesus is what other people thought about him. And we all know what it's like when people write about other people, the information isn't always true and can be exaggerated.

He may have been enlightened, i think he must have been a very good guy. like Buddha. But we will never actually know what he was like unless we manage to find some document written by him.

Answer 6

I'm not an athesist but I don't believe he was. He just repeated a lot that Buddha said first. It's believed by those who have studied the historial Jesus that he was explosed to some Buddhists.

Some of the statements he made (if he actually said them) show a lack of enlightened knowledge.

Answer 7

Really - what do you not understand about the fact that they simply do not believe in any god not just your?!!

Atheists do not believe in Jesus or any other aspect of a religion that has a god. They simply comment and retort to the wild claims made by Christians!!!!!

The Roman record holds not one mention of Jesus even though he was supposed to have been such a big problem to them!! Correspondingly there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah that are very well recorded!!!

Christians do claim one mention of Jesus in the Roman record but that was thirty years after his supposed death and the name was misspelled. Since Jesus was as common a name as john or David it seems highly unlikely therefore that it had any connection to the one you adore!!!

Answer 8

he was a very enlightened being that taught in parables and metaphor as all enlightened teachers have done. The problem is that his followers have turned him into a God and created a self righteous exclusive religion around his teachings.......He came to show man the way to spiritual awaking and self transformation and instead man has used his teachings to gain power and control in the world.

Answer 9

He had more of an enlightened opinion that his Jewish faith taught him. His ideas had more of an Eastern philosophy with some Greek in there as well. His "love one another" principle, aka the Golden Rule was not his idea, that was around long before him, just not in Jewish teachings. Even his teaching in parables has a strong eastern lean.

Answer 10

The very existence of the Jesus of the bible is highly in doubt. Beyond that if he did exist his teachings were nothing new, they were warmed over teachings of many before him. So enlightened? No.