What do atheists think of Jesus? I can totally understand understand hating his followers, a lot of terrible things were done in his name, but surely no one dislikes the actual dude, do they?
If Jesus existed, and was not just another iteration of former sons of gods born of virgins around December 25 who peformed miracles and died at about 30 years of age and was resurrected three days later, all of which many religious or mythological characters before Jesus did (mere coincidence, I'm sure), then he was one of those extremely convincing and charismatic men who was able to gather devoted followers in the same way Adolf Hitler did.
Jesus is God in the flesh.
Can you just comprehend that for a moment?
God Himself, the omnipotent, omniscient and eternal creator that created the universe.
Turned into a human to sacrifice Himself for our sins.
That's how much God loves us.
He's the biggest deceiver in history.
Compare John 18:20 with:
Matthew 13:10-11 and 17:9
Mark 4:10-11, 7:36 and 9:9
Luke 5:14, 8:10, and 8:56
>another iteration of former sons of gods born of virgins around December 25 who peformed miracles and died at about 30 years of age and was resurrected three days later
y u no check facts
Atheism doesn't equate to hating Christians or other religious folk btw
But no he said some cool things.
there's nothing really to take exception to. Aside from the "I'm the son of God" stuff
The "dark ages" is a myth.
Secondly, the Papacy does not represent Christianity. The RCC is known to be the Whore of Babylon by Christians.
Could say the same for Muhammad. It wasn't until the infighting of his successors that all the authoritarian and draconian dogma shit started. When he was still around women ran businesses and held civic office, drinking alcohol wasn't forbidden, and (ironically when compared to today's arabs) lived plainly and shunned the accumulation of wealth. Even the definition of "jihad" was completely different.
Recently a Qur'an was found that is dated to between between 568 and 645 CE. The Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) was engaged in his active ministry in 610-632 CE. The wording of this Qur'an is identical to the wording today.
In case anyone is missing the significance of that, here is a comparison. The first time we have any two-page manuscript fragment of the New Testament is from around the year 200 CE. That’s 170 years after Jesus’ death in 30 CE.
Meanwhile the New Testament has approximately half a million different variations in text between different copies of early manuscripts in Greek found!!!
This finding proves the text of the Qur’an is exactly the same in 630-40 CE as it is in 1630-40 as it is in 2016, the scribes of the Qur’an simply didn’t change it. They made sure they copied it the same, every time, word for word.
If Muslim scholars over the centuries – from the very beginning – made dead sure that when they copied their sacred text they didn’t change anything, why didn’t Christian scribes do the same thing??? My answer is that the Muslim scribes had the guidance of Allah.
Clearly this proves once and for all the Qur'an is the word of Allah and Islam is the one true faith.
Truly God is Greatest.
He also forgets that tons of Bibles were burned by the Roman Catholic church during the middle ages.
Estimates are that over 50 million Christians were murdered and burned at the stake for simply refusing to take part in the Catholic system.
Christians were the biggest victims, but this is ofcouse conveniently ignored by fedoras.
Mohammad is and always will be a false prophet.
The darkness and earthquake surrounding Christ's crucifixion was recorded around the world, yet no other records exist for the "miracles" of mohammad.
i disagree with aslan's islam defense but he's spot on about jesus
>What do atheists think of Jesus?
I'm not an atheist. I'm more of an agnostic who enjoys academia and secular scholarship. I've never been becoming of the label atheist. Either way, this is my view of Jesus.
I think Jesus is indeed understood in his proper historical context.
I think it's highly likely that John the Baptist was an Essene and Jesus was one of his Disciples until he was put to death by Antipas sometime between 28 and 30 C.E. I draw these conclusions mainly from Josephus' Antiquities. Luke is pretty clear that John the Baptist (JTB) belonged to the priestly order of Abijah (Luke: 1-5), where he eventually left his priestly privileges. The reason why I suspect he was an Essene has to do with how the Essenes viewed the physical body along with their ritual purity of full immersion baths. Also, according to Josephus, the Essenes were based in the wilderness region of Judea. Both JTB and the Essenes reject the Temple authorities, both saw themselves as the followers of the tribe tribe of Israel, and both were actively preparing for the end times. This will eventually get repeated by Jesus, who was likely a follower (or disciple of JTB) hence why when JTB is put to death sometime in 28-30 C.E. Jesus comes on the scene with two of JTB former disciples: Andrew and Phillip.
I also believe we have to look at what happen when the divide between Judea and Galilee grew wider after Rome placed Galilee under the direct rule of Herod the Great's son, Antipas. Apart from killing JTB, Antipas built two new Greek cities: Sepphoris and Tiberias. These two cities placed enormous economic pressure on the poor generating a greater divide between the rich hellenized jews and Roman authority, and the poor Galilean society who worked to feed the new urban development. Jesus was alive to see all of this, which is why he was quick to set up shop at the fishing village of Capernaum, eventually branching off.
The third caliphate started 12 years after Muhammad's (peace be upon him) death. Uthman, the third caliph was his son in law and close companion and one of the people he dictated the Qur'an to.
I have no idea why you think what you just wrote in any way refutes my post.
Chan, Kei Thong. Faith of Our Fathers: God in Ancient China. Shanghai, China, 345 Xianxialu, 2006. p. 318.
It was purported to have been recorded in some very old chinese court documents.
There was also a chronicler of that time by the name of Thallus. None of his original work survived, but he was referenced in the works of Sextus Julius Africanus wherein he described an unnatural darkness.
Jesus man mission of was similar to JTB, he was there to restore the Kingdom of Heaven, which ultimately meant overthrowing the rich aristocrates in Jeureselm and the Pagan Romans who controlled them. Of course the wealthy priests didn't care until Jesus started getting a following, from which he was rounded up and killed, just like so many before him, I will list them:
>The prophet Theudas (gathered 400 diciples before Rome cut off his head)
>The Egyptian (him and his followers massacred by Roman troops)
>The shepherd boy Athronges in 4 B.C.E. (Killed by Roman soldiers)
>The Samaritan (crucified by Pontius Pilate)
>Simon son of Giora (who called himself "Master of Jerusalem and the Messiah")
>Simon Son of Kochba (Also claimed to be the Messiah after the Jewish War against Rome in 132 C.E.)
all killed by Romans.
and of course when we examine the Dead Sea Scrolls in depth, one does get a sense of Messianic fervor that was generated at the time all these men were killed, and just before leading to the Jewish Revolt in 63 C.E.
In other words, Jesus was just one of many failed messiahs who lived in Judea.
This is really no different from a lot of other ways in which religion is created:
>muhammad and quraysh tribe
>Siddhartha vs Brahman hierarchy
>Sufis' vs Abbasid society
>Luther vs Catholic church
>Jains asceticism vs Siddhartha
>Ali vs Sunni
>Mormonism vs Market Revolution/Urbanization
There are major stressors, injustice, or oppresion that is being caused to one religious group, and (often times) the elites are not meeting the needs of a large portion of the religious community, hence, they break away and either form a new sec (which often starts as a cult) or a new religion.
not an atheist, but from what I can tell, the popular meme nowdays among all the kids is Michael colliers whole spiel about how paul of tarsus basically made Jesus up.
so, it seems that atheists don't think anything about him, as they claim he simply isn't real.
Well I'm sure there are a great deal of atheists that have something to prove, instead of being a level headed bunch and following the secular academic sources (which a great deal of them do this as well, so don't be so quick to lump all atheists together m8).
I don't dispute that he could have been a real person, and he probably did some good stuff.
Who knows, though. He could have been the ancient equivalent of ISIS, and Christians changed his legacy just like the Catholics buried the fact that Mother Teresa wasn't actually as pious as they want us to believe.
>and the fable was a cultural construct.
Pretty much. Mark's account was written first sometime around 70 C.E. by the first apologists, followed by Matthew and Luke between 90 and 100 C.E. and finally tapping off with John around 100-120 C.E.
Plenty of time for Christians apologist to make Jesus fit the old prophecies and usher in his messianic message.
>Bart D. Ehrman is the author of more than twenty books, including the New York Times bestselling Misquoting Jesus and God's Problem. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and is a leading authority on the Bible and the life of Jesus.
He is a Religious Studies Professor, not a theologian. He is a secular scholar of Religion; so no, he is not going to "preach" he is going to bombard your ass with historical academic sources. He is probably a heavier read than you are used to.
I don't think Jihad's definition has necessarily changed, it still means 'struggle' and always has done. My Muslim friend joked that he was 'on jihad' when he was doing this charity drive
Well really there's only Josephus and Tacitus though.
Both have their issues.
Both have only quite recent christian copies.
Both have some evident tampering.
Josephus doesn't even back up the claims in Tacitus being referenced by christians despite being quite able to do so.
Tacitus mention of jesus goes unquoted for centuries.
I would hesitate to say "Paul made him up" but the existence of a historical Jesus is not without definite doubt.
>What do atheists think of Jesus?
I think of him as a small time Jewish rebel back in the Roman days, not much is known about him and the whole cult Paulus/Saul created around him has not much to do with him.
Jesus didn't write the bible.
if I have 50000000000000000000000000 copies of 50 shades of grey, it doesn't make it anymore of a true story.
also, I'm a Christian, but you need to learn to fucking argue for Christ's sake. number of manuscripts doesn't prove that the manuscript's contents are true history, but simply that the manuscript is a generally accurate copy of the original.
Sorry if I laugh, but it's funny how you are quick to dismiss secular scholars on religion, I can see where they might be threatening to a theologian, but Ehrman is a well repsected historian on the Roman Greco Period, Jesus, and the Bible. The dude reads 4 dead languages and has dedicated most of his life to the secular academic study of religion (mainly the New Testament)... and you just dismiss his work as "doubtful" ... I'm sorry but I find that kind of funny and low brow.
The worst Christians are just as snooty and anti-intellectual as the worst fedoras. Both just need to fuck off back to preschool and let the big boys talk instead of flooding the national discourse with their trash
I agree Jesus existed, myself, but this is stupid. Thie issue is that the gospels aren't very reliable as sources. And how good a source is isn't just assessed by when it was written or how many copies got made, studying history doesn't work like that.
We misunderstood each other. I replied "doubtful" to the comment on the book being heavier than I'm used to, not the author's work itself. I'm not threatened by secularists or being preached to, but I would prefer to read something that presents just the facts without injects from the author's personal beliefs theistic or not.
Ah, next time, green text quote me, otherwise I'm going to reply with a messy comment.
Although most scholars present their findings within a theoretical framework, the book is simple history, and will present you with the facts you need to understanding the chronological developments of the Bible and the early Christian Church.
Religious Studies is the secular study of religion through historical and sociological methods and theory.
Theology is the apologetic study of religion through the faithful and religious.
There is big fucking difference mate, if you deny this, I don't think there is any reason for us to continue in an exchanged dialog.
I agree that a religious person would be more like to call it theology and a non-religious person would be more likely to call it religious studies but they are both studying the same thing.
Ehrman isn't teaching either. He is a historian.
>Ehrman isn't teaching either. He is a historian.
Religious studies is a fancy field for "History of Religion"
Thus Ehrman is a historian of religious, ergo Religious Studies.
Ehrman himself is an agnostic.
History of religion and religious studies are not necessarily the same thing at all.
What Ehrman is doesn't make any difference. He could be a Muslim or a Jew while teaching the same subject, he used to be a Christain and teach exactly the same material.
The person Jesus comes across as just another doom prophet. It's basically 'listen and believe or bad things will happen to you'
The cultural phenomenon Jesus sounds like people picking up the pieces Jesus left behind and turning it into something it was never meant to be, a philosophy that, like the philosophies after Christianity, tried to manage and control life in a world that was urbanizing
Most of jesus' advice and teachings are worthless unless you believe in the legitimacy of the old testament and that he was literally god come to fulfill it. I believe CS Lewis wrote about this in an effort to refute the cultural christians of his day who said that Jesus could simply be a great moral teacher.
>I can totally understand understand hating his followers
Those weren't his followers
If I take a gay flag and go out preaching against gay people does that makes me gay?
Using someone's symbol doesn't mean I'm his follower neither does using someone as a symbol.
This. Besides, which this moral teaching stuff is massively over-rated, once you take out the miracles and the magic etc you are left with a couple of parables or so and some banal stuff, which while it is nice enough, my gran could have come up with.
It doesn't matter what you label yourself, Jesus can help.
Sure maybe you don't understand the whole spiritual aspect of it or don't believe in it, but you can learn a thing or two from looking at His basic teaching in the Gospel.
Also, Jesus doesn't sit down in church and speed up the sermon so He can go home and watch football, He seems to warn about the state of the present day church today multiple times.
I think people look at the christian stereotypes today and make their conclusions
>believe in my dad or burn in a pit of fire
>fuck all your worldly possessions and your family and follow me
>i can forgive transgressions that don't have anything to do with me
>slaves, obey your masters
>suffer not a witch to live
Yeezus is 50/50 at best.
>be visited by three whack jobs who call him king o de joos
>whack jobs visit king herod
>king herod decides to kill all 144,000 male infants under two years old
>no independent source
>israel not exactly populated at the time
>impossibiru to have 144,000 kids
Smell like bullshit to you? Just for one tiny second?
Didn't expect the true believers to watch. But you should because this is what a lot of people think and you as a good Christian will need to refute.
But no. You'd rather not even come and see.
Well at his core he was a presumably swindler, if you're an atheist that's hard to get around. He seems well-meaning though, if the accounts are accurate.
Also, I'm not all that sure he actually existed. It's really not as conclusive as is commonly thought. Although there probably was a guy named jesus.
Saying things like "that's how much God loves us" is what makes people ignore commenters like this. It takes a stand that assumes that God is real, which, discourages people from trying to understand.
Stay neutral, explain your beliefs and explain reasoning, DON'T APPLY YOUR BELIEFS TO THEIR LIFE.
I'm not saying you're wrong in any way. I think you might have something, but applying it to me, is pushing it on me. Let me come to the conclusion to myself.
I like cherrypicked pop culture Jesus, but actual Jesus is kind of an asshole. For example, pop-culture Jesus talks in parables because he is trying to explain incredibly complex and important things in a simpler way, but actual Jesus speaks in parables specifically to be confusing and cut down on the amount of people he has to save (Matthew 13:10-17).
This is actually a pretty good way of putting it, and I kind of agree.
I like the modern interpretation of Jesus, and I generally agree with his teachings about morality and this things he said (think Jefferson Bible-type stuff). But, even Jesus in the gospels had a somewhat dark side. He was antagonistic to people who disagreed with him, weaseled out of defending himself, called for violent revolution, and was even accused of hypocrisy by his followers once. Basically, he was a complicated guy that wasn't always perfect, but he said a bunch of good things.
another interpretation is that the word incarnates and goes trough death to overcome it, where the word is the same as christ who is the same as 'i am that i am', and that this represents a model, a example
to me this is a myth and a important one, even tho im not a believer
the meaning would be we are all christ-like by being 'i am that i am', and from this standpoint the gospels can be read as a manual
the entire gospel of thomas is like that too, where only the elect will receive true understanding of the parables and thus salvation. funny seeing that in a canonical book.
maybe the gnostics were on to something about him after all.
There was an interesting article I read about the advice Jesus gives within the context of the times and how it's some of the most devious non-violent resistance ever conceived, used against the occupying Romans.
Things like "if he hits you, turn the other cheek." This isn't saying "don't hit back just be cool and forgive him", it's an affront to the person striking you. Turning the other cheek meant he'd have to hit you with either his left hand or the back of his right, which was a huge social dishonor and would basically mortify him and make him look like the biggest possible dick to anyone around. Ditto for the "if he asks you for your shoes/shirt/some small article of clothing (don't remember it too well), strip naked and present it all to him". The idea isn't to be absurdly generous, it's to humiliate him by having made you get naked, even more of a big deal then than now.
My memory of it all is pretty shaky, but if anyone knows what I'm talking about please speak up.
theres no other way to say thing that have been 'hidden since the beginig of time' and so on, its not like theres a practical everyday vocabulary you can use without making it all confusing and tl;dr
Until you have the false christs come about.
The idea that man could be God is more appealing than man is a sinner in need of repentence.
We attain Christ-like qualities, and of course if the Gnostics are on to anything it usually is against "Yhwh" or "I am that I am" which just seems like people would rather cut out all religious concepts just to exalt themselves as a higher authority through the name translation of yhwh
>To illustrate with the saying about turning the other cheek: it specifies that the person has been struck on the right cheek. How can you be struck on the right cheek? As Wink emphasizes, you have to act this out in order to get the point: you can be struck on the right cheek only by an overhand blow with the left hand, or with a backhand blow from the right hand. (Try it).
But in that world, people did not use the left hand to strike people. It was reserved for "unseemly" uses. Thus, being struck on the right cheek meant that one had been backhanded with the right hand. Given the social customs of the day, a backhand blow was the way a superior hit an inferior, whereas one fought social equals with fists.
This means the saying presupposes a setting in which a superior is beating a peasant. What should the peasant do? "Turn the other cheek." What would be the effect? The only way the superior could continue the beating would be with an overhand blow with the fist--which would have meant treating the peasant as an equal.
The sayings about "going the second mile" and "giving your cloak to one who sues you for your coat" make a similar point: they suggest creative non-violent ways of protesting oppression.
Roman law permitted soldiers to force civilians to carry their gear for one mile, but because of abuses stringently prohibited more than one mile.
If they ask you to do that, Jesus says, go ahead; but then carry their gear a second mile. Put them in a disconcerting situation: either they risk getting in trouble, or they will have to wrestle their gear back from you.
Under civil law, a coat could be confiscated for non-payment of debt. For the poor, the coat often also served as a blanket at night. In that world, the only other garment typically worn by a peasant was an inner garment, a cloak. So if they take your coat, Jesus says, give them your cloak as well. "Strip naked," as Wink puts it. Show them what the system is doing to you. Moreover, in that world, nakedness shamed the person who observed it.
Thus, these sayings from the Sermon on the Mount, these seemingly mild sayings, are actually potent ways of confounding and exposing injustice. King and Gandhi may not have been aware of the finer points of modern Biblical scholarship, but they were no doubt clear that Jesus was counseling a radical new way of empowering the underclass.
And so, those little verses from the Gospel of Matthew are the foundation upon which King and Gandhi built their world-moving campaigns for social justice.
>a canonical book.
Maybe if you're a gnostic. Otherwise, it's noncannonical, like every other gnostic gospel, most of which featured the same theme of secret knowledge Jesus hid from most of his followers.
That's not how Jesus looked. That's Borgia.
Christ did not look like an effeminate liberal hippie.
>Jewish (curly hair)
>carpenter (muscles and strength)
This is most likely what He looked like.
This or the shroud of Turin.
The Catholic pussy depictions of Him is an insult to God.
>This is most likely what He looked like.
A painting made by an American evangelical child after supposedly seeing him in a dream?
>the shroud of Turin.
A relic known as a hoax since it's first historical documentation, looks like other medieval depictions of Jesus, and that doesn't follow laws of anatomy?
Both rely on faith to be accurate, and neither are very likely as "true" depictions of Jesus.
Christ-kun is kawaii desu senpai
We don't dislike him. In fact many of recognize that a historical Jesus actually existed (with evidence to prove it) and that most likely he was a preacher. We just have a gripe with his status as it is in the Church.
Not kawaii enough desu
The Bible says a man's hair should not go under the shoulders, it shouldn't be long like a woman.
Catholics' depiction of Jesus is Borgio, or Mithras, or Zeus, or the ancient pagan sun god.
But OP's pic is definately not Yeshua/Jesus.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"
I know we're all just Christposting in good fun here, but it still does really bother me how it's glossed over that Christ is sacrificed to himself by himself so he will forgive some people's actions he defined as sins.
The Bible says Christ would come first as a suffering messiah.
The second Advent will be in glory.
All of the world's militaries will gather at Armageddon in a futile attempt to kill God.
It makes sense if you consider the customary Jewish context around it.
Back in the gold days Jews used to write all they sins on a lamb and send it into the wilderness to die, thus their sins died with it.
So if everyone's sins, past present and future, are going to get atoned for at once they need something bigger than a lamb. And the only thing of such magnitude for such a task is god.
>All of the world's militaries will gather at Armageddon in a futile attempt to kill God.
Do tanks count as a type of iron chariot or will they have to pull the old Canaanite models out of retirement?
When Adam & Eve sinned, the first sacrifice was made: God killed an animal and covered A&E with animal hide.
Throughout the OT, Israelites had to sacrifice animals to atone for their sins, until God would offer the ultimate sacrifice, Himself.
Jesus fulfilled the OT law, fulfilled all the prophecies regarding the messiah, and made salvation accessable to the gentile world.
I don't think you recognize the horror of the future.
The New World Order will be ruled by the Antichrist.
It's going to be a "New Age" and alien deception.
Christians will be persecuted and killed like never before until Christ comes back to destroy the Illuminati, Freemasons and occult forces that have controlled the world since antiquity.
he means that the Qur'an was "centralized"(only one true version) almost immediately, whereas the new testament(and christianity as a whole) wasn't, instead it was a mere abstract collection of religious texts, and it took a long time for it to have an "official" version.
I think the Great White Throne judgment is more exciting than Christ's millenium rule.
Can you picture, all people in the world that have ever lived will be judged according to their actions.
Every thought, word and action will be displayed infront of all of mankind. I can't imagine the guilt and shame atheists will have, before being thrown into the lake of fire.
Every knee will bow.
I think Jesus called his followers to live a life of extreme asceticism while still interacting with the world at large. Its difficult enough to life such a life in relative isolation, its much harder to live it while interacting with common folk. I am not sure Jesus ever meant for his way to be followed by any but the most serious and devout, What he assumed would happen to the great masses who could not imitate his lifestyle I am not sure, as the gospels seem to talk out of both sides of their mouth on the issue of salvation for the masses.
While I admire certain aspects of his lifestyle and message, I think it would be physiologically damaging for most of us to try to implement into our lives, and would require at the least a clean break with our everyday lifestyle.
The Gospel is also in Genesis.
Adam means Man
Seth means Appointed
Enosh means Mortal
Kenan means Sorrow;
Mahalalel means The Blessed God
Jared means Shall come down
Enoch means Teaching
Methuselah means His death shall bring
Lamech means The Despairing
Noah means Rest, or comfort.
Man appointed mortal sorrow; the blessed God shall come down teaching His death shall bring the despairing comfort
There are tons of Biblical codes and integrated messages, it's truly amazing.
Well there's still the great feast/party with Christ.
Christians will be rewarded based on what they have done for Him.
Christians who died as martyrs upholding the truth will be the greatest.
Christians who had ministries and spread the gospel will get rewards.
Christians who didn't really do much or help save people, but were still very spiritual, read the Word and followed Christ's teachings, will get some rewards.
Christians who didn't do anything and basically were lukewarm/secular in nature, won't get any rewards. They will be saved and enjoy Heaven and company with God, but their works/fruits don't deserve any treasure.
How exactly we will be ranked, no one but God knows.
>Atheists who work for MSF
>Atheists who run homeless shelters
>Atheists who are 100% pure people
INTO THE PIT YOU GO!
Sounds like a fair God, amirite? Your shitty interpretation of the Gospel is the reason people are moving away from Christianity and making it hard for people like myself to save them.
Your works are like filthy rags to God.
Your sins outweigh your good deeds.
You sin everyday without knowing it.
God knew that man can't save himself, that's why He sacrificed Himself on the cross.
He did all the work, He paid our debt.
YOU simply have to believe. Salvation is a gift.
You accept it or reject it.
Works and ministries are AFTER you get saved, they become things you naturally want to do because you become a child of God.
Works alone without God won't get you anywhere.
>deny the creator who made your body
>deny your heavenly father who knitted you in your mother's womb
>deny God who made every cell in your body and keeps you alive and sustains you in His universe
>b-b-but i was a good guy!
god made you so he can do with you as he wants, you dont have a say in the matter
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
How Jesus will react to Catholics.
There was this video in Brazil where you see a girl emotionally crying and explaining she saw popes burning in hell and urged people to stop following that corrupt system
would be nice if someone found it
Given that Jesus was devout Jew if he were still alive he would be going bat shit crazy at the blasphemous notion he is literally god. He would hate all Christians more than any other group on the planet.
Ever notice that its always girls having this ecstatic religious visions? no matter what religion or where you go in the word, it tends to be children, mostly girls having these experiences
Those are works of theology designed to "turn" him into god. Not actual solid historical accounts of anything.
And like >>560288 this guy says, he doesn't claim it in the earliest one, Mark, it is as the gospels get later and later in the date they were written the claims about him being god get more extravagant.
>youtube is a reliable source for global non bias information on NDE's and other spiritual experiences
Perhaps you have an entry on Conservapedia you would like to point me to?
Why is there not a single NDE account that mentions seeing Buddha/Allah/or whatever?
No matter what cultural or religious background, they ALL testify seeing Christ and a Christian afterlife.
Christianity is the largest religion in the world, it would make sense for Muslims in Christan countries, as outliers to see Jesus in NDE, being as NDE's are basically proven hallucinations
There was recently an ISIS fighter who had an NDE and after that converted to Christianity.
There was a Hezbollah Shi'ite from Iran who was locked up and converted to Christianity.
These stories go on and on.
I think you might be retarded.
Buddha isn't a 'god,' and you wouldn't 'see' him unless you achieved Nirvana. The reason there are so many Christian NDE events is that there's so many Christians.
Fucking hell take a stats course and a comparative religions course.
> I can totally understand understand hating his followers
Are you implying that all atheists hate Christians (or religious people in general)?
>In line with earlier Greek thought, the 4th-century bishop and theologian, Augustine of Hippo, wrote that the creation story in the Book of Genesis should not be read too literally. In his book De Genesi ad litteram (On the Literal Meaning of Genesis), he stated that in some cases new creatures may have come about through the "decomposition" of earlier forms of life. For Augustine, "plant, fowl and animal life are not perfect ... but created in a state of potentiality," unlike what he considered the theologically perfect forms of angels, the firmament and the human soul. Augustine's idea 'that forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time"' prompted Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, to claim that Augustine had suggested a form of evolution.
>In his Akhlaq-i-Nasri, Tusi put forward a basic theory for the evolution of species almost 600 years before Charles Darwin, the English naturalist credited with advancing the idea, was born. He begins his theory of evolution with the universe once consisting of equal and similar elements. According to Tusi, internal contradictions began appearing, and as a result, some substances began developing faster and differently from other substances. He then explains how the elements evolved into minerals, then plants, then animals, and then humans. Tusi then goes on to explain how hereditary variability was an important factor for biological evolution of living things:
"The organisms that can gain the new features faster are more variable. As a result, they gain advantages over other creatures. [...] The bodies are changing as a result of the internal and external interactions.
Evolution implies death came before man.
The Bible clearly states that death came after man sinned.
Genesis clearly states a literal 6 day creation. The idea that 6 days were just symbolism for large periods of time has several issues:
Plants need water and sunray.
Animals need plants.
This symbiotic relationship requires instant creation, not "millions" or "billions" of years.
Darwinism is meant to undermine Christianity. The theory of evolution is an attack on the Bible.
Stop adhering to satanic ideologies and stay strong in the faith.
Hmm that is interesting however Augustine also required a historical Adam and Eve (monogenism) for his theology to make sense. I would be interested to see if those verses are taken out of context or not too.
Not reading the shit about Muslims though sorry pal
>What do atheists think of Jesus?
Bretty cool guy, he was ahead of his time in terms of morality, in fact it's only it's only recently that people have been taking the whole "forgiveness", "do unto others" thing seriously, at least here in Europe. Ironically atheists here are more likely to hold these kind of values.
This is all assuming the bible is fair in it's assessment of him, it's probably not but we won't get into that.
>I can totally understand understand hating his followers
Nobody really hates christians. Old catholics might get mocked and born-again loonies are avoided but there's no real ill-will.
>a lot of terrible things were done in his name, but surely no one dislikes the actual dude, do they?
I'm sure there are a few edgelords but he still has the reputation of a good guy amongst atheists.
>Stop adhering to evidence and facts and stay strong in the faith
>in fact it's only it's only recently that people have been taking the whole "forgiveness", "do unto others" thing seriously, at least here in Europe
>Ironically atheists here are more likely to hold these kind of values.
>Old catholics might get mocked and born-again loonies are avoided but there's no real ill-will.
>Anyone actively practicing their faith are derided/ostracised
Sounds fair, right?
I sometimes think I'd want to die for Jesus t͏͏b͏͏h f͏͏a͏͏m
I mean - not that I want to die (usually ;_;), but this seems like a glorious way to do so if I ever would ecounter situation where I have to deny my faith to survive.
On the other hand I'm not sure if I wouldn't chicken out like Disciples did. It's like ultimate test of character.
There is no evidence he existed and if you point this /his/ will chimp out like muslims do when you insult mohammed.
>You forget that during these so called "dark ages" it was mostly the clergy that were actually literate.
I hate this argument,christians are too stupid to understand it proves the church was repressive,during pagan roman empire even fucking legion soldiers were taught how to read.
Citation is my personal experience faggot.
>Anyone actively practicing their faith are derided/ostracised
Thankfully catholics can handle the bants so they don't need to whine like you. As for the crazies, they deserve to be avoided, nobody wants to get converted by som weirdo ex junky shouting in the street.
By your logic since I experienced x, but didn't experience y, it means that what I experienced in x was inexperiencible in y.
Its akin to saying that since I didn't exist during the 14th century, that the people who did couldn't breath.
You're so stupid you will probably claim that's my logic instead of your logic deconstructed and shoved down your throat, fem.
>By your logic since I experienced x, but didn't experience y, it means that what I experienced in x was inexperiencible in y.
>Its akin to saying that since I didn't exist during the 14th century, that the people who did couldn't breath.
I'm not about to go explaining the history of the church in my country to you. Take my word for it.
There's more evidence for his existence than plenty of other historical figures that no one ever questions. There's a reason that scholarly consensus is that Jesus existed. The only reason to say he didn't is edginess.
Somebody WAS in fact quoted by the disciples and for me its beyond doubt that whoever that Jew was, he came from the many who were displeased by the spiritual corruption in the temple and was hated for his heresy.
My personal belief? He was one of the enlightened, such as Buddha and avatars of Brahman with similar, if not the same teachings. He taught spirituality using the existing mythology/religion of the time to explain new and higher truths, disappointed with the fact that spiritual was corrupted by the material everywhere around him. He fully practiced what he preached. Even if you don't believe he existed, the message that character sends, even if fictional, is extraordinary. Even so much that I doubt Jews or Romans of the time could've come up with such teachings and such out of place character. Its just way to eastern teachings-tier.
Hippie Jesus = cool bro
"Muh I'm God" Jesus = what the fuck?
It's like there are two Jesus' in the Bible - a good guy mystic who helps people and has his own philosophy / metaphysical worldview...
... and a total weirdo Jesus who came from nowhere and now he says he's God... or something like that.
I strongly believe that the first one is the original and the second's speeches were added later,
>I strongly believe that the first one is the original and the second's speeches were added later
I get what you mean, but Jesus was not 'just' the son of God, but also 'God' mindset sometimes. Both a human with earthly experience and a deity. Like Krishna. Like one fraction of that demiurge or whatever embodied to have a human experience. Some people that claimed enlightenment beside Jesus spoke about themselves both as for example 'Jesus, son of Mary' and 'Alpha and Omega', omnipotent God
>The darkness and earthquake surrounding Christ's crucifixion was recorded around the world.
Yet Pliny, Seneca and Ptolemy who were writing works on natural and Astronomical issues somehow forgot to mention such a miracle.
>By that logic, Caesar, Alexander and Hannibal didn't exist either.
Not really as there is evidence for them beyond works written by pseudo anonymous authors written decades later.
Ceaser has his own accounts, as well as those by hostile sources and other historians of the period.
And this is ignoring the wealth of archaeological evidence.
There is more evidence for Socrates existing than the Jesus of the bible
I think that historians have built a pretty solid case for the existance of Jesus. mentions by people like Tacticus are only collaborating sources.
We actually know some of what early opponents of Chisitianity said about it, some said Jesus was the bastard son of a Roman soldier, no surviving source questions his existiance.
we also have to weight the probability of his existence vrs the alternatives, such as an invention by Paul. These theories are even more implausible.
You are just as bad as the religious with your simplistic generalization, if not worse.
China called itself the Middle Kingdom because they assumed they were the centre of the world. Japan divides the entire globe into "Japanese people" and "foreigners." Why the fuck do people get so upset that Europeans cared mostly about European affairs when every single region cares more about itself than other regions?
Religion is more complicated than that, though. The thought processes, intent, and philosophy behind actions matter. Agnostics think different things than atheists and hold different opinions, so they're different, even if they're similar in practice. Similarly, a Christian and a Jew are different despite using some of the same texts and worshiping the same God.
Saying they're the same thing is just as bad as a fedora saying "all religions are the same LMAO, get a clue and stop being lied to!"
Unless the agnostic is engaging in the worship practices of a particular religion, they are generally classified as an unbeliever by said religion. Unless there is a difference between "sure unbeliever" and "unsure unbeliever" in some religion.
So? What bearing does that have on whether a person is an atheist or agnostic. People don't label themselves by the labels of a group they don't belong to. According to that line of thinking, everyone is an atheist according to someone's point of view.
>According to that line of thinking, everyone is an atheist according to someone's point of view.
Nah, because atheism is the lack of belief in a God/Gods, believing in one but not the others isn't a lack of belief in deities.
I'm a different anon, first post >>561466
>How is that in any way a useful way to talk about religion, or the lack of it?
I'd say that pure agnostics claim there is no way to know how likely a God does or doesn't exist, agnostic atheists think the existence of God/Gods is unlikely, but don't claim it to be impossible (most 'atheists'), and gnostic atheists claim to know that there is no God/Gods.
And for it being useful, it's just a description of belief or lack there of, to usefully talk about religion you just talk about it.
Wait, what? What are you talking about? Someone said atheists and agnostics are the same thing, so I said they're not and explained why. Then someone claimed they were, because to believers in a religion, all unbelievers are the same, so I pointed out that that's an absurd way to talk about how people label themselves.
Now you present different categories for atheism and agnosticism (if they work for you, cool, but there isn't really a standardized set of definitions everyone follows on this stuff; I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying not everyone categorizes themself according to your model), indicating you believe there's a difference. So what point are you trying to make? I'm genuinely confused here.
The difference between ingroups is always more important than the difference between outgroups. Atheists and agnostics are both outgroups to all religions. You may choose to define yourself as one or more groups within the category of "unbeliever" (or more relevant to modern times, "infidel") but in practical terms there is no difference.
>I think that historians have built a pretty solid case for the existance of Jesus. mentions by people like Tacticus are only collaborating sources.
They have evidence for a person named Jesus existing in the same way they have evidence of Lao Tzu. Noticed how I said Jesus of the bible and not just Jesus. The existence of Jesus and the events described in the bible is largely a matter of faith. Even things like the massacre of the infants and Census (with the closest one happening after Herods death) have no evidence despite the great opportunity for there to be so.
>We actually know some of what early opponents of Chisitianity said about it, some said Jesus was the bastard son of a Roman soldier, no surviving source questions his existiance.
Not really, that idea only comes from the Talmud which was literally written centuries after the time of Jesus.
>we also have to weight the probability of his existence vrs the alternatives, such as an invention by Paul. These theories are even more implausible.
Take a read of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails acts like we see being carried out by Paul can still be done without the motivation being true. Its not a simple dichotomy.
>Herostratus (Greek: Ἡρόστρατος) — or Erostratus — was a 4th-century BC Greek arsonist, who sought notoriety by destroying one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. His acts then prompted the creation of a law forbidding anyone to mention his name. His name has become a metonym for someone who commits a criminal act in order to become famous.
The idea it only came from Paul is implausible, there were too many groups, with sometimes contradictory beliefs around at or near the same time, yet despite the differences, they retained several core beliefs, which points to a common origin in the near past, the fact that the some of the Greek gospels get information correct about things like the layout of Jerusalem indicates the presence of an oral tradition of Palestinian origin.
Its not that we can prove Jesus existed, its just for him not to exist you need to explain an absurd amount of coincidence and circumstantial evidence.
Of course much of the same evidence leans credence to the idea he was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher rather than the all knowing Son of God made man, but that is a different debate
>In Against Celsus, Origen mentions it.
Which confirms my point. That book like the Talmud was written two centuries after the death of Christ and even states that Celsus was referring to an argument made by Jews.
>The idea it only came from Paul is implausible, there were too many groups, with sometimes contradictory beliefs around at or near the same time, yet despite the differences, they retained several core beliefs, which points to a common origin in the near past,
I never said only Paul, the article I linked and the book linked within that show how its not a dichotomy between Con job and truth.
>the fact that the some of the Greek gospels get information correct about things like the layout of Jerusalem indicates the presence of an oral tradition of Palestinian origin.
Have you read the Gospel of Mark? For an ex pharisee he has almost no knowledge of Jewish law and custom making a huge amount of rudimentary errors. Its things like that seem to go against your thesis, let alone the fact the NT was written in Greek.
>Its not that we can prove Jesus existed, its just for him not to exist you need to explain an absurd amount of coincidence and circumstantial evidence.
Its more about proving the Jesus of the Bible existed and that it is an accurate account rather than say a blend of truth and fiction like the Illiad. The fact that despite the grand events described there is no evidence for them outside of the bible, combined with issues like those in the gospel of mark are causes of legitimate skepticism.
Of course much of the same evidence leans credence to the idea he was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher rather than the all knowing Son of God made man, but that is a different debate
Thats entirely the point imo, there wasnt a shortage of those historically.
Well of course the "biblical" Jesus was a mesh of real events, the post death cult, and the author's whims. Most historians dismiss the gospels were written by the apostles themselves, they are 2nd or 3rd generation Christians, probably Greeks writing this stuff. It is clear however that Other Christian communities had a much better picture of Jerusalem then the author of Mark did.
Generally speaking, only Jesus's baptism by John and the crucifixion are held by historians to have certainly happened, and this is based of course on circumstance and critical reading of the gospels.
>Thats entirely the point imo, there wasnt a shortage of those historically.
Yes but one of them got remembered because a cult emerged after his death and spread. That makes him important if only vicariously, even if the doctrines of the religion grossly distort his original message
I'm just saying that as a non-religious person I can get along with many of his teachings (the philosophical / metaphysical ones), but when he suddenly leaves behind rationality and starts an ego-boosting speech about how he is God and how everyone should believe in him...
Nowadays everybody know the theory / dogma of trinity, ok.
But imagine that a guy walks to you and says that he is God.
It doesn't matter if it's 2000 years ago or today - it's creepy and weird.
I think there could be a real Jesus who was a mystic and a spiritual person, but I don't think he ever said he is (the son of) God.
Nobody would believe it.
>the crucifixion are held by historians to have certainly happened
No certainly not. Crucifixion was reserved for enemies of the roman state, and even if jesus was considered such, why would the romans also crucify two common criminals as well?
>What do atheists think of Jesus?
I don't have an opinion on the man. I don't believe he did miracles or even really existed, but I have nothing against him.
And you have to realise that atheists don't hate Christians.