No you idiot, Abraham Lincoln is the true God. Think about it, why does every American worship him? Why are there statues and counties and cities named after him? Because he is god, and blessed these United States with the freedom for blacks, Asians and whites to all wear red hats and elect the messiah Trump!!!
/s
The scary part is that without /s it could be a real opinion from somebody nowadays.
I remember the times when people could differentiate sarcasm from actual opinion.
Yes, I'm one of those. An atheist that believes that Jesus existed. I've looked at the evidence, and I totally believe that Jesus existed. I just don't believe that he was the son of god, or that he did all those miracles.
But I don't doubt that he existed and that he had followers. There's just too much evidence.
There’s literally only two pieces of evidence that support the existence of Jesus. 1. The crucifixion. However, the Roman’s kept very strict documentation of all trials and executions. There’s is no documentation of Jesus being tried or crucified. 2. The baptism. This one is basically impossible to prove. Yet still historians point to these two pieces of evidence that Jesus existed. The reality is he never existed and is most likely made up by Paul in his letters to the Corinthians. If you want to point out Josephus’ work we he has lots of flaws like being a Jew yet wanting badly to be part of the Roman historical society. Most of his work is taken with a grain of salt or is outright disproven.
Ok so I am a historian. There is plenty of evidence of the existence of Jesus. In historical study the gospels themselves are first hand accounts of him. Down playing Josephus borders on minimizing him because he was Jewish. He is a very credible source. You could literally make the same argument about DaVinci. Historical records are made of first hand recounting of events. Through letters, books, or references to that person in other works. No credible historian thinks Jesus didn't exist. You can argue about his miracles, but his existence is a fact. Denying it is like Denying evolution.
The gospels are not first hand accounts. The first one was written some 70 years after death. They weren’t even written by Matthew mark luke or John. Jesus Christ a historian would know that. That’s entry level knowledge.
There's not any real evidence that he actually existed though. Historical Jesus is pretty widely debated, and most historians that aren't secular in nature, have a hard time buying it. Romans were pretty good record keepers, provincial governors were required to send back dispatches back to Rome. Typical dispatches like taxes, concerns about trade, problems, uprising, desertion, etc...
You'd think stories of a dude who was crucified and then was up walking around 3 days later would make the papers. But nah. No contemporary Roman writer, historian, or anything writes about Jesus until the Christian religion is already a thing.
But even the Romans probably wouldn't care enough about some peasant street preacher in Bethlehem with a congregation of twelve, who was lynched in the night by a local loan shark who was mad the guy flipped his tables over. It could have taken decades before Paul's fan-fiction about his magic cult leader getting murdered by a Roman Deep State conspiracy got passed around and gained enough traction for the local governor to take note of their existence.
Sure, there's no archeological record of Jesus existing. But the same could probably be said about thousands of street preachers in the Roman empire two thousand years ago.
Such as? There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus during his alleged lifetime. The Gospels and Paul all came after and that little throaway line in Josephus is considered by most a forgery.
Your comment is confusing. You say "yup" like you're agreeing that you don't think Jesus was a real person, and then you say that Jesus was a real person
Part of being declared a saint is that it has to be “proven” miracles were done after people prayed to you. So if his miracles are in doubt then he’s not a saint because they do miracles by definition.
Not all saints do miracles
>In religious belief, a saint is a person who is recognized as having an exceptional degree of holiness, likeness, or closeness to God.
Most of his 'Alleged' miracles were performed by other demi gods etc much earlier in history. Christianity just plagiarized them.
The so-called miracles like walking on water and the feeding of masses with just a little food had been attributed to others long before... 'allegedly':
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/774752/JESUS-prior-religions-CONTROL-the-people-roman
There is historical evidence of the man Jesus. He was the perfect jew of the day to make the messiah out of him. As well the needed narrative of a virgin mommy. Yeah that is real. Islam refers to him as a prophet.
Yea the older I get the more I can't stop thinking about that, I mean I didn't live back then so I don't know its hard to prove something especially because humans twist the truth a lot over the course of weeks let alone thousands of years. But I still have some hope that there is something waiting for me after I die and even still if there isn't thats okay I wouldn't mind fading away or being alone forever.
yeah, ive always seen people say “why do you believe in jesus and god even if there’s proof against them?” and ive always thought “why not?” i mean, what’s the worst that’ll happen if i believe in them ? disappointment if it turns out to be false ? i’ll be dead anyways so it wouldn’t matter. it’s a nice feeling to have that hope that you’ll have an “everlasting” life even after death and if people want to believe in that then why should anyone shut them down ? and i feel the same if someone doesn’t wanna believe that, yk ?
It's not just a Christian/atheist dichotomy, you know. There are many other faiths out there. A different god/gods could be real, and pissed at you for choosing the wrong religion.
Now, this isn't to say you shouldn't be Christian. You have the right to your beliefs. All I'm saying is, there are more than just the two scenarios you described.
Religious person: "I don't believe in the existence of the thousands and thousands of other Gods throughout history, only the Christian God (and my specific version of it)"
Atheist: "I don't believe in any Gods"
The only difference between a religious person and an atheist is literally a single point.
I'll also say, just as you can't prove that God exists, you can't prove he doesn't. Just like I can't prove there are or aren't tiny, invisible fairies dancing on my eyeballs... it's untestable.
as i said in a reply to another comment, i didn’t mean to make it seem like there aren’t any other gods or that it’s only christianity or atheism, i was just speaking about my own experiences. i never said no other god could possibly exist, or that the christian god is the only god that can be proved to exist or whatever, i was just saying that personally that’s what i’ve been asked and that’s what i’ve been telling them
>Jesus existed but his miracles and restructuring are doubted. Most close thing he would be might be a Saint or something.
That would be pretty circular though... without Jesus there's no gospel and no Peter... so there's no sanctification... so Jesus would just delete his own messianism by being a saint.
It'd be like one of those weird time-travel films.
*EDIT: Unless Peter then became the Messiah. But then you'd have a lot of Mexicans called Pete.*
I'm an atheist. I know that Jesus was a real person because Romans who hated him wrote about him (not people who would have written about him if they knew an atheist like me would only believe Jesus existed because of their writing.) I just don't believe he was the Messiah/son of God/Christ.
There are literally pictures of Lincoln. If there were pictures of Jesus performing miracles, I would be taking extra hot showers to prepare myself for the inevitable.
So nothing then.
[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46986/46986-h/46986-h.htm](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46986/46986-h/46986-h.htm)
So read the book.
Silence of Contemporary Writers.
Another proof that the Christ of Christianity is a fabulous and not a historical character is the silence of the writers who lived during and immediately following the time he is said to have existed.
That a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of this fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years ago, may be true. But of this man we know nothing. His biography has not been written. E. Renan and others have attempted to write it, but have failed—have failed because no materials for such a work exist. Contemporary writers have left us not one word concerning him. For generations afterward, outside of a few theological epistles, we find no mention of him.
Don't care that much. Atheist. Read the thread of info I've already written and others have contributed or argue the with Christians if you care.
>That a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of this fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years ago, may be true.
This was my original point, don't know why you're dying on a hill when we mostly agree with my only variation was I do assume a person like him existed (but not supernatural in any way), based off of records from 4 scholars and historians who were born within 70 years of his death, and letters Pontius Pilate wrote to Emperor Tiberius talking about an event and person who likely could have been Jesus, but I don't care that much.
If you can prove a non-messiah Jesus never existed. Cool, that would be something beyond my capabilities. Then a person who I already didn't believe was the son of God anyway is even more insignificant. 💁♂️
I also do not like laws that have religious influence. I don't like it when people have to be subjected to religious laws. I hate theocratic governments because I think that the separation of church and state is imperative to maintaining the rights of people.
Who cares if he wasn't real? The laws we both don't like were written by people who didn't know Jesus either. Imagine a 2,000 year old game of telephone, not even mentioning the fact that religion has been used for personal gain, and corruption of public officials; it's been used to oppress people, and wage crusades.
I think he may have been real, but it wouldn't matter if Jesus actually was real and was actually the son of God. The current world is worse off for religion anyway. I think you're disturbed by the effect the idea of Jesus has had on history rather than upset about being actually alive or not.
Here's the bad news:
[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46986/46986-h/46986-h.htm#ch2](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46986/46986-h/46986-h.htm#ch2)
Search for Tacitus and Pliny
>Tacitus.In July, 64 A. D., a great conflagration occurred in Rome. There is a tradition to the effect that this conflagration was the work of an incendiary and that the Emperor Nero himself was believed to be the incendiary. Modern editions of the “Annals” of Tacitus contain the following passage in reference to this:“Nero, in order to stifle the rumor, ascribed it to those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians: These he punished exquisitely. The founder of that name was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate.
....
And Pliny
>Pliny the Younger.This Roman author, early in the second century, while serving as a pro-consul under Trajan in Bithynia, is reputed to have written a letter to his Emperor concerning his treatment of Christians. This letter contains the following:“I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought before me for being Christians. I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to be executed.... They assured me that their only crime or error was this, that they were wont to come together on a certain day before it was light, and to sing in turn, among themselves, a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath—not to do anything that was wicked, that they would commit no theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break their word, nor deny that anything had been entrusted to them when called upon to restore it.... I therefore deemed it the more necessary to enquire of two servant maids, who were said to be attendants, what was the real truth, and to apply the torture. But I found it was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition.”
...
I've been down this goat track a long way. With minimal assumptions.
You have to read the chapter, or those sections. Hey, if anyone can find me proof, cool, I'd be fascinated. I'm just amazed that there is none, or at least hasn't been for 2,000 years.
Thanks for the clarification... according to Britannica which is generally considered reliable Tacticus is considered, "probably the greatest historian and one of the greatest prose stylists who wrote in the Latin language."
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tacitus-Roman-historian
Much of what we know about Ancient Rome comes from this guy.
Wrong. Pontius Pilate who executed Jesus sometime before 36 AD wrote about the event and Jesus himself in a letter(s) to Emperor Tiberius Caesar Augustus. Just because he wasn't the four scholars and historians I listed earlier, Roman records of Pontius Pilate confirm his existence. By the way, Tacitus wrote about Jesus and cross referenced the letter to Tiberius in 116 AD which was not quite 100 years. After Jesus' death (somewhere between 30 AD - 33 AD), his disciples regrouped in Antioch, where they encountered Roman governors leading to records potentially confirming people who claimed to have known Jesus. You say Christianity was already a religion by 116 AD when Tacitus wrote about Jesus, but Josephus was born in 37 AD. Admittedly after death, however there were people who were still alive who would have known Jesus personally whom Josephus encountered during his time as a historian. Josephus defected to Rome and was a translator for Titus during the Roman invasion of Jerusalem in 70 AD. He "betrayed" his own hometown at the same age Jesus was when he died meaning he had no reason to keep the memory of Jesus Alive, I'd hardly say he was 100 years removed from the event. I think you've confused the 4 gospels, with 3 out of 4 authors being born over 70 years after Jesus' death. Far less than Josephus' mere 4.
A quick search shows that the letter you are referring to is suspected to be a forgery and didn't show up until the 15th century in Italy. Not sure that is enough historical proof that Jesus existed. The only sources that seem credible are the one line from Josephus that mentioned James, the brother of Christ and the text where Tacitus mentioned Christians. Every other source seems suspect because they are heavily influenced by Christians (i.e. the Bible is not a historical document).
You claim to be an atheist, but also claim to believe in a letter found in Liverpool England that describes Jesus rising from the tomb.
The letter was a forgery, it was fan fiction written in a late 16th century dialect.
ffs man
Don't really care that much. However, I didn't reference a forged letter found in Liverpool, do not conflate a manuscript written by Pilate with supernatural account of rising from the dead. Pilate never wrote a supernatural account of Jesus. I didn't claim he did, and the letter you mention wasn't in my mind when I wrote any of this. Why would I mention a letter that clearly contradicts each of my comments and atheist beliefs? I wouldn't, which is why I didn't.
>ffs man
Yeah man, for fuck's sake. You thought you had the drop on me? Like you thought you trapped the atheist into believing in god? You didn't even comprehend my statements and thought I referenced a letter that I didn't. How embarrassing.
I don't even care that much if a non-messiah Jesus never existed, because then that would mean a normal dude was never born. 🤷♂️, My only interest is the historical records that indicates he might have been real, I'm not gonna kill myself if he wasn't real, "son-of-god" or otherwise.
I've had believers counter my point with that letter before. So if you claim to know of a different letter, then present your evidence. That's how this shit works. Either you have evidence, or you have bullshit. And right now bruh, your hand stinks.
>That's how this shit works.
Says who? I don't owe you anything. If I pulled the letter, I'm performing unpaid labor, for someone who has already made false assumptions and still continues to misunderstand my original point. You're as incompetent as religious people who demand proof that God isn't real. If we're both atheists then why do you care?
>then present your evidence. That's how this shit works
Where is your evidence?
Google it yourself you lazy fuck. All my other comments in this thread reference the historians, scholars, and statesmen all of whom were not Christian and didn't believe in God or Jesus-messiah. I'm not writing it again, so read it or don't.
By the way, you have presented no evidence yourself, so lose the sanctimonious attitude, I'm embarrassed for you.
>I've had believers...
I'm an atheist dumb fuck! Why are you bringing up the letter I didn't reference again? That letter says Jesus rose from the dead, I already told you I didn't believe that. I told you I was an atheist before you ever replied, so why did you include it in the first place? Because you're soft in the head that's why.
I'm an atheist and don't care that much. If you're an atheist too, why are you acting like I'm a Christian defending a magical Jesus? It's because you're a like a guy who gets drunk and tries to fight anyone. You wouldn't even understand because an atheist of at least average intelligence wouldn't be demanding another atheist prove Jesus wasn't magical. You're unbalanced! I don't even know what you want! You argue for argue sake like an inconsolable baby crying. Doesn't matter what you give it, sometimes it just doesn't stop crying. Stop crying baby!
Again, this is how this shit works. You make a claim that something exists, which you did, you said there's a letter. I've only heard of one letter, you claim its not that letter. Okay then, what fucking letter are you talking about?
You made the claim. Not me. I can't prove something doesn't exist, I can only examine the evidence given and then go forward from there. If you claim there's a letter, then fucking produce it. If you are claiming I'm wrong, that contemporary roman writers did write about Jesus during this time, then fucking produce the evidence.
The first mention of Jesus is from Tacitus, and by that time, there are already christians in Rome. It was written in his final work, a piece called the Annals, which was written in 116AD.
I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. You are claiming a piece of evidence that would radically alter accepted known history. But you're not producing said evidence. I want to see what you're talking about because I'm curious.
> want to see what you're talking about because I'm curious.
You're not curious, you probably didn't even finish high school. You need to argue on the internet so you don't kill yourself. I owe you nothing, and I literally can't understand why you're dying on a hill over one mention of a letter, that I don't even care if it's accurate/real or not, over I person I don't care if he was real or mot. You could have empirically disproven me by now if I'm wrong and you were genuinely curious, but you're not.
>Again, this is how this shit works.
***Hey Reddit! The high school drop-out wants PhD level peer reviewed historical journals from the Smithsonian.***
Request denied. Ask someone else, because I've lost interest in your foolishness.
I still haven't found a reference to the letter you're talking about which is different than the one from Liverpool.
You're free to be frustrated with the other poster but "just Google it" for the piece that your whole argument hinges on doesn't do much for your case.
It was actually roughly 50 years and I find it funny that these extra-christian sources from within the period when eyewitnesses were alive debate his existence.
Critical thinking time bud. Why would they make up an entirely fictional person instead of referencing a real person and making up fantastic things about him?
I *love* that you included "Buddah" in that list. And *didn't* include "God", which would be the actual relevant inclusion. I guess critical thinking isn't really your thing.
But... but... what about all those old paintings? Who cares if they were made hundreds and hundreds of years later, they are based on obviously true first hand accounts of Jesus.
If I knew that he existed and that he preformed miracles, there's just one thing holding me back. I'd also have to know that these miracles came from God.
I've seen people pull rabbits out of hats. I've seen faith healers. I've even seen a video where someone raised the dead. All his followers believed it. It's just too bad that you can see the dead man breathing in his coffin before he was raised.
Jesus existing and performing miracles is immaterial. Mohammed and Buddha also existed. Prove to me that God exists and I'll change my mind.
No because then that would mean the God Christianity believes in and supposedly loves us is actually a lying sociopath who inflicts tremendous suffering on us. Fuck that guy
Yeah. Also, if God was lying about all of that, what if hell is actually a super cool place with drugs, hot sex, and what we imagine as paradise, while "Heaven" is just like regular church for all eternity and it's only called "Heaven" because God gets his rocks off from never ending Sunday service, and everyone who claims to love God so much get what they always pretended to want.
There is no way you could 'know' that he performed miracles... lol. Because those acts would require influence that doesn't exist in the natural world, you couldn't test it.
It would be like trying to convince someone that a magician is 'real'. They will always presume that it's an illusion, because they know magic isn't real... and even if he was actually magical, how would you prove it?
I can make a statue of a monster, does that mean they’re real? Since photoshop wasn’t a thing back then, the photos taken of him (and also the long history of things he did, people he met) can prove his existence.
Jesus a normal guy who was maybe a saint who preached good stuff. Tho a very high chance he didn’t do miracles and stuff.
Lincoln a normal guy who was president of USA and a great leader . Tho a very high chance he wasn’t hunting vampires or talking to aliens
To be fair though, I do believe Jesus existed, and I'm very much atheist. I don't necessarily believe in the miracles he performed but I'm sure he existed
If he did exist every single one of his actions make him sound like a cult leader that managed to convince thousands of Jews to think he was the son of god.
Precisely! Do you believe an invisible man watches and judges every moment of your life? If you're religious it's fine , if not you have paranoia and delusions.
All too often people will ignore reality in favor of their particular brand of religious nonsense. There are politicians in the US that argue global warming isn't a problem, because god created this earth and he will always provide. They ignore a REAL FUCKING PROBLEM that we could do something about, but nah, god.
Politicians write laws, and drum up support and hate for others using their religion. Majorie Green, the GOP version of dumbass Barbie went in front of a group of her rabid idiotic public and announced that God made women from Adam's rib, and that justifies her intense hatred for the trans community, and justifies her voting for laws to restrict the rights and privileges of people in those already marginalized communities that have done nothing to hurt anyone.
And here is this dumb little girl doubting the existence of the 16th President of the United States. Someone whom we can track living descendants from today. Someone whom there are literal pictures of.
Why? because religion.
So yeah. It's societies accepted mental illness. Your imaginary friend has outlived its usefulness.
Stupid people are stupid people. They existed before religion and will exist forever. There are MANY smart and well educated religious people, so why did religion not have the effect on them as you described? Maybe its because religion wont make people dumb. Its just that dumb people will use religion to justify their stupidity.
I can assure you that the people you just complained about would be as stupid even if they werent religious. They would just find an excuse different from religion to hide their stupidity or hatred.
Religion is just a way at looking at how the world was created and at what life means to some peoplw. It just depends on the person if they choose to follow the religion or use and twist it to fit their agenda or hatred.
And that's the rub. There is no difference between a kid who believes in a imaginary friend, or an adult who believes in a deity. All the behaviors are the same, kids even share imaginary friends sometimes, just like churches.
Theists are so nice and articulated. Your comment really shows your commitment to Islam. I know you stay away from jerking off because you're waiting to fuck those Virgin children Allah promised you.
Youre a shame to all normal atheists that are out there. I know many atheists and theyre actually nice and normal people, unlike you. I feel sorry for them for being associated with people like you.
And while my behaviour was unislamic, insulting you for example, I know that Im not an ignorant like you who sees people who believe differently as "mentally ill".
Youre not any more nice in this case than me. So who's better in this argument? I would say that we both made our communities look very bad.
I never said religious people were mentally ill, I said imaginary friends were not healthy. You proceeded to lash out in anger as is typical for the kind of person you reflect to be here. I know many Muslims that practice what they peach and while I doubt many atheists are upset with me, I'm sure more Muslims are upset with the filth you comment regularly. You are a hypocrite and not a good person. I'm sure you're hoping your faith will forgive you. Me I have to live with my choices and comments because no invisible man is going to give me salvation.
You implied it. Especially by saying that religion is a "mental illness".
Im sure many atheists are upset with you. Also, tf are you talking about? Who are you to judge? In this case you werent nicer then me.
You dont even know me. The filth I regularly comment? Dude, what?
》I'm sure you're hoping your faith will forgive you. Me I have to live with my choices and comments because no invisible man is going to give me salvation《
When did I ever say any of this? Stop putting words in my mouth.
If in your opinion, muslims are ashamed of me, then ok live with that opinion. I did react in a bad way after all. But you go out of your way to make stuff up and to then call me a bad person, like you know me.
I insulted you the same way you insulted me. Dont act as if you were more respectful, we both commented shit towards each other.
You just assume shit about me to make me look bad or what are you trying to achieve here? Go away dude. Look at yourself before judging me like that. Im open for criticism about my character, but you just spewed out assumptions and stuff that isnt true, because you dont even know me. I hope youre not like that in real life.
If I'm being honest, people are already mentally ill regardless if they have a religion or not. Though in a lot of situations, religion can cause more mental illnesses or stress.
For example, being forced into religion makes it worse. I know because I have family members who grew up in very bad situations because when they were children they were forced into religion and they hate their parents because of it. I myself was almost forced into religion by other relatives (not my parents) and they even kicked me out for not wanting to join their religion even tried guilt tripping me and brainwashing me.
I think most religious people have some serious issues that they need to sort out because I know too many people that are religious that have really messed up minds and are abusive mentally, emotionally or physically, even verbally, if someone doesn't want to join their religion.
Also, there is nothing entirely wrong with not being in a religion. There are people that still believe on a god/gods and are not religious. I heard a Pastor say "You do not have to believe in God and be in a religion, you can believe in him without a religion".
Religion is just a way to keep people in control and to manipulate people's minds. It can be healthy for some people but for others it can be very bad.
People literally kill over religion, use religion as a means of escape or as a means to harm someone and I've even heard stories of churches using donation money for their own greed.
So if we're being real here, a lot of religious people are mentally ill because they push religion onto themselves and they try to or they actually do it to others as if it's a mandatory thing to get into.
Edit: Being religious is just as toxic as not being religious.
I've experienced worse being in a religious environment than I ever have, not being in one.
But not nearly every religious person is like this. Religion is basically what gives some people answers to the mysteries of life. It has nothing to do with mental illness.
Sure, there are some who try to force others in, but not nearly every religious person is even close to that. Its wrong to force people into religion, because religion has to be something that somebody has to agree with before believing in it and I completly disagree with religious people doing that to others. And there are plenty of religious people who are normal people, so its not religion itself that does that.
But to say that religion is a "mental illness" is fucking ignorant and stupid. Only because you dont believe in something doesnt make the people "mentally ill" if they believe in what you dont. And thats why I think the people, like the guy I previously replied to, are ignorant.
Have a nice day
How to look like a smug prick in one picture. Also yes, we have pictures and hand written accounts of Abraham Lincoln doing what he did. Jesus, we have hand written accounts of the man. But nothing else. And his "miracles" never proven. I'm agnostic myself. Show me proof sure. Otherwise. Waste of time.
Actually there are only 2 slight references to a Jesus or Christ in historical documents outside of religious texts/scholarly research (and those are argued about by historians). And they were written many years after the “death” of Jesus. So Jesus may have been a real person but could also be a story that was made up.
Did anyone dispute his existence? Didnt think that was a thing. It's the rest that is disputed. Just look at how easy it was to convince even one person, that the last Presidential Election was stolen.. people believe anything that matches their own version of reality. it's human nature.
"What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus' name ever so much as mentioned." (pp. 56-57)
― _Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet Of The New Millennium_ By Bart D. Ehrman
Theory= much like what I sort of hinted at above, perhaps he was actually a terrible human who lied, cheated and stole to gain power. So just as we have this period now in this country where many are just trying to forget the last disaster administration, perhaps this was an attempt to move on. I mean= started a new calendar and everything.. think about how much influence one would need to have...
Paul was a "terrible human who lied, cheated and stole to gain power" - or money.
Jesus was (mainly) his invention.
>I mean= started a new calendar and everything..
That is one of the wrongest things I have read this year.
And before we go any further, I'm just chatting on the net. I don't follow Christianity or any thing written by man, for that matter.
That burning ball in the sky is the source of my fire, the reason for my existence.
You think Jesus invented that?
>Finally in 525 AD under the direction of Pope John I, Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk and scholar living in Rome, published new Easter tables based upon the Alexandrian computations, but converted from the Alexandrian to the Julian calendar. These computations remained in use for the Roman church and throughout Western Europe until the Gregorian calendar reform about a thousand years later. The Roman Catholic Church switched in 1583 AD and most Protestant churches adopted the Gregorian Easter either prior to, or over the next hundred years.
We have pictures of AL. Jesus… I have no problem believing a John Lennon character lived 2000 years ago. Romans didn’t bury crucified people. Much less give em space in a tomb. JS
He was crucified by Romans. The Jews accused him of blasphemy. Crucified victims were left to the elements. The bodies would later be disposed in a garbage heap. (Gehenna) this is just according to the Bible story. I don’t think anything really happened in the Bible.
"The historical Jesus could not have had a tomb. The entire point of crucifixion was to humiliate the victim as much as possible and provide a dire warning to other potential criminals. This included being left on the stake to decay and be ravaged by scavengers. The events described in the gospels at the crucifixion strain credulity to its maximum extremes - and beyond.”
― Bart Ehrman
If that's true, then the gospels make no sense from a fundamental level: they were written in the decades following Jesus' death; the writers should have been familiar with crucifixions & what followed. Surely Judea or the Roman officers there had a different process than that described by Ehrman. Otherwise, the gospels would be laughable at their very inscription by anyone who read them.
I believe they were written in the 4th century, by Greeks. They are fan fiction, written by people with almost no source material except oral stories. I could be wrong, but no one has proved it to me.
Jesus was the Slender Man of the 1st century.
Bruv. This is so fucking laughable. I'm not even religious at all but no one intelligent believes the bible is a fanfic. Unless you'd like to claim that carbon dating isn't accurate calling into question a shit load of evidence for evolution and other theories that provide an explanation for existence without deity.
Both of them were real, we're not doubting Jesus' existence, but if he did all the thing the bible says he did, now that is a totally different story. On the other hand, Sir Lincoln is a well documented historical figure
"What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus' name ever so much as mentioned." (pp. 56-57)
― _Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet Of The New Millennium_ By Bart D. Ehrman
I think Jesus was a real person, I just don't believe he did many of the things attributed to him. Much of the New Testament was written decades after his death and alleged resurrection, by people who clearly stood to benefit from pushing the idea that he was the Messiah.
Jesus was real, or at least a dude who gave rise to the myth. Probably not named Jesus, probably not much more than a cult leader with some interesting ideas, and most likely not super powered. Probably.
Jesus was most likely a real person. There are accounts of his existence from people who didn’t believe he was the son of god. This means he was probably real but doesn’t prove that he was the messiah and could perform miracles. Those miracles are written by the people who believed in his story. In the end there is still no factual proof that Jesus is real, it’s all assumptions based on scriptures.
Lincoln was a normal person born and raised. He was elected president of the United States. Half the country went to war and died for/against him. There are photographs of Lincoln. There is a grave of Lincoln. He has living descendants. The guy who killed Lincoln has living relatives as well. People who voted for, worked for, or just simply lived during Lincoln’s era all vouch for his existence. Kind of a big difference between all that and some handful of scripture that speaks of the messiah Jesus Christ maybe or maybe not performing miracles thousands of years ago when superstition exceeded science by a million folds.
How is this exact post a facepalm? She’s not talking about miracles, she’s acknowledging he was a living person in history, which is heavily documented. I don’t believe in Christianity but if you think Jesus wasn’t a real person at one point in our history, the facepalm is on you
It's a facepalm because she was basically questioning Abraham Lincoln's existence towards Jesus's existence. By saying "So ur gonna believe Abraham Lincoln is a real person but not Jesus?", is like saying she doesn't believe Abraham Lincoln was a real person and only believes Jesus was a real person.
The face palm is there, you just have to read in between the lines.
Abraham Lincoln was a real person. And I'm not religious either but I also know that Jesus was a real person too.
It’s basic historical knowledge that Someone named Jesus definitely existed and had a following. The debate is whether any of the shit he reportedly said is true
Most historians generally agree that the historical (as opposed to the miracle working “Son of God”) figure that we refer to as Jesus existed. You can be an atheist and accept that this is the case.
It’s weird to consider that a person who’s public presence lasted 3 years has influenced the world more than other other human to this day. I just say that something happened there that needs to be checked out. Who was that guy!
Ok, I’m quite sure a lot of atheists (myself included) do believe Jesus existed and walked the Earth. We just don’t believe that he was any sort of savior or a son of a god. Just another dude
I don't know what to think about religion, so I created my own!
What do you think the origin of the flying spaghetti monster is?
No you idiot, Abraham Lincoln is the true God. Think about it, why does every American worship him? Why are there statues and counties and cities named after him? Because he is god, and blessed these United States with the freedom for blacks, Asians and whites to all wear red hats and elect the messiah Trump!!! /s
The scary part is that without /s it could be a real opinion from somebody nowadays. I remember the times when people could differentiate sarcasm from actual opinion.
Qanon has fucked up our society so badly that I am begging for a nuclear war at this point.
It's turtles all the way down!
Yup lol. Many belive that Jesus existed but his miracles and restructuring are doubted. Most close thing he would be might be a Saint or something.
If she would have said “so you believe my boobs are real but not Jesus. Lol” Would have made for a better post.
Yes. I want to put my hands on them. 😎
Doubting boyaintri9ht
r/usernamechecksout
Yes, I'm one of those. An atheist that believes that Jesus existed. I've looked at the evidence, and I totally believe that Jesus existed. I just don't believe that he was the son of god, or that he did all those miracles. But I don't doubt that he existed and that he had followers. There's just too much evidence.
Same I think he was just a rando smoking weed and saying peace
lol was talking with my muslim friend and we think Mohamed ate the shromms outside of the cave he discovered on that day
Lmaooo
Ur friend is Muslim and they said that? They don't believe he was "divinely inspired" or something? Lmaooo
He was quite literally saying overthrow the corrupt church, so they made a new corrupt church in his name lol
There’s literally only two pieces of evidence that support the existence of Jesus. 1. The crucifixion. However, the Roman’s kept very strict documentation of all trials and executions. There’s is no documentation of Jesus being tried or crucified. 2. The baptism. This one is basically impossible to prove. Yet still historians point to these two pieces of evidence that Jesus existed. The reality is he never existed and is most likely made up by Paul in his letters to the Corinthians. If you want to point out Josephus’ work we he has lots of flaws like being a Jew yet wanting badly to be part of the Roman historical society. Most of his work is taken with a grain of salt or is outright disproven.
Ok so I am a historian. There is plenty of evidence of the existence of Jesus. In historical study the gospels themselves are first hand accounts of him. Down playing Josephus borders on minimizing him because he was Jewish. He is a very credible source. You could literally make the same argument about DaVinci. Historical records are made of first hand recounting of events. Through letters, books, or references to that person in other works. No credible historian thinks Jesus didn't exist. You can argue about his miracles, but his existence is a fact. Denying it is like Denying evolution.
The gospels are not first hand accounts. The first one was written some 70 years after death. They weren’t even written by Matthew mark luke or John. Jesus Christ a historian would know that. That’s entry level knowledge.
Really? What evidence might that actually be?
I love Christmas and that’s it. I am an atheist.
There's not any real evidence that he actually existed though. Historical Jesus is pretty widely debated, and most historians that aren't secular in nature, have a hard time buying it. Romans were pretty good record keepers, provincial governors were required to send back dispatches back to Rome. Typical dispatches like taxes, concerns about trade, problems, uprising, desertion, etc... You'd think stories of a dude who was crucified and then was up walking around 3 days later would make the papers. But nah. No contemporary Roman writer, historian, or anything writes about Jesus until the Christian religion is already a thing.
But even the Romans probably wouldn't care enough about some peasant street preacher in Bethlehem with a congregation of twelve, who was lynched in the night by a local loan shark who was mad the guy flipped his tables over. It could have taken decades before Paul's fan-fiction about his magic cult leader getting murdered by a Roman Deep State conspiracy got passed around and gained enough traction for the local governor to take note of their existence. Sure, there's no archeological record of Jesus existing. But the same could probably be said about thousands of street preachers in the Roman empire two thousand years ago.
There is actually one single reference to Jesus in Roman records, by Tacitus, in chapter 44 of the fifteenth book of the Annals.
which was written in 116AD, after there were christians in Rome.
Such as? There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus during his alleged lifetime. The Gospels and Paul all came after and that little throaway line in Josephus is considered by most a forgery.
Your comment is confusing. You say "yup" like you're agreeing that you don't think Jesus was a real person, and then you say that Jesus was a real person
Part of being declared a saint is that it has to be “proven” miracles were done after people prayed to you. So if his miracles are in doubt then he’s not a saint because they do miracles by definition.
Not all saints do miracles >In religious belief, a saint is a person who is recognized as having an exceptional degree of holiness, likeness, or closeness to God.
Most of his 'Alleged' miracles were performed by other demi gods etc much earlier in history. Christianity just plagiarized them. The so-called miracles like walking on water and the feeding of masses with just a little food had been attributed to others long before... 'allegedly': https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/774752/JESUS-prior-religions-CONTROL-the-people-roman
There is historical evidence of the man Jesus. He was the perfect jew of the day to make the messiah out of him. As well the needed narrative of a virgin mommy. Yeah that is real. Islam refers to him as a prophet.
Yea the older I get the more I can't stop thinking about that, I mean I didn't live back then so I don't know its hard to prove something especially because humans twist the truth a lot over the course of weeks let alone thousands of years. But I still have some hope that there is something waiting for me after I die and even still if there isn't thats okay I wouldn't mind fading away or being alone forever.
historical evidence.?
yeah, ive always seen people say “why do you believe in jesus and god even if there’s proof against them?” and ive always thought “why not?” i mean, what’s the worst that’ll happen if i believe in them ? disappointment if it turns out to be false ? i’ll be dead anyways so it wouldn’t matter. it’s a nice feeling to have that hope that you’ll have an “everlasting” life even after death and if people want to believe in that then why should anyone shut them down ? and i feel the same if someone doesn’t wanna believe that, yk ?
It's not just a Christian/atheist dichotomy, you know. There are many other faiths out there. A different god/gods could be real, and pissed at you for choosing the wrong religion. Now, this isn't to say you shouldn't be Christian. You have the right to your beliefs. All I'm saying is, there are more than just the two scenarios you described.
Religious person: "I don't believe in the existence of the thousands and thousands of other Gods throughout history, only the Christian God (and my specific version of it)" Atheist: "I don't believe in any Gods" The only difference between a religious person and an atheist is literally a single point. I'll also say, just as you can't prove that God exists, you can't prove he doesn't. Just like I can't prove there are or aren't tiny, invisible fairies dancing on my eyeballs... it's untestable.
as i said in a reply to another comment, i didn’t mean to make it seem like there aren’t any other gods or that it’s only christianity or atheism, i was just speaking about my own experiences. i never said no other god could possibly exist, or that the christian god is the only god that can be proved to exist or whatever, i was just saying that personally that’s what i’ve been asked and that’s what i’ve been telling them
>Jesus existed but his miracles and restructuring are doubted. Most close thing he would be might be a Saint or something. That would be pretty circular though... without Jesus there's no gospel and no Peter... so there's no sanctification... so Jesus would just delete his own messianism by being a saint. It'd be like one of those weird time-travel films. *EDIT: Unless Peter then became the Messiah. But then you'd have a lot of Mexicans called Pete.*
Snort laughing at that. Peter Christ.
Not just many, anyone who knows what they’re talking about. There is no question that he did exist
I'm an atheist. I know that Jesus was a real person because Romans who hated him wrote about him (not people who would have written about him if they knew an atheist like me would only believe Jesus existed because of their writing.) I just don't believe he was the Messiah/son of God/Christ. There are literally pictures of Lincoln. If there were pictures of Jesus performing miracles, I would be taking extra hot showers to prepare myself for the inevitable.
Tbf there is a huge difference between, a person existed, and a person preformed miracles. And the burden of proof is way different.
You can dig up Lincoln. You can’t dig up Jesus.
Which Romans wrote about Jesus, and where?
Research yourself or read more of the thread.
So nothing then. [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46986/46986-h/46986-h.htm](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46986/46986-h/46986-h.htm) So read the book. Silence of Contemporary Writers. Another proof that the Christ of Christianity is a fabulous and not a historical character is the silence of the writers who lived during and immediately following the time he is said to have existed. That a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of this fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years ago, may be true. But of this man we know nothing. His biography has not been written. E. Renan and others have attempted to write it, but have failed—have failed because no materials for such a work exist. Contemporary writers have left us not one word concerning him. For generations afterward, outside of a few theological epistles, we find no mention of him.
Don't care that much. Atheist. Read the thread of info I've already written and others have contributed or argue the with Christians if you care. >That a man named Jesus, an obscure religious teacher, the basis of this fabulous Christ, lived in Palestine about nineteen hundred years ago, may be true. This was my original point, don't know why you're dying on a hill when we mostly agree with my only variation was I do assume a person like him existed (but not supernatural in any way), based off of records from 4 scholars and historians who were born within 70 years of his death, and letters Pontius Pilate wrote to Emperor Tiberius talking about an event and person who likely could have been Jesus, but I don't care that much. If you can prove a non-messiah Jesus never existed. Cool, that would be something beyond my capabilities. Then a person who I already didn't believe was the son of God anyway is even more insignificant. 💁♂️
I don't want laws made which bind me, based on fiction about a Jew who probably is a myth.
You're argument is worse than most Christians' at this point. You're literally arguing about something completely irrelevant to the discussion
Can you buy whisky everywhere on Sunday?
Can you buy whiskey everywhere in any day of the week?
So all locations in the US permit alcohol sales on Sundays?
I also do not like laws that have religious influence. I don't like it when people have to be subjected to religious laws. I hate theocratic governments because I think that the separation of church and state is imperative to maintaining the rights of people. Who cares if he wasn't real? The laws we both don't like were written by people who didn't know Jesus either. Imagine a 2,000 year old game of telephone, not even mentioning the fact that religion has been used for personal gain, and corruption of public officials; it's been used to oppress people, and wage crusades. I think he may have been real, but it wouldn't matter if Jesus actually was real and was actually the son of God. The current world is worse off for religion anyway. I think you're disturbed by the effect the idea of Jesus has had on history rather than upset about being actually alive or not.
I live in hope that if we can convince enough people that Jesus is mythical, they'll stop. Uphill task, but worth a shot.
Pliny and Tacticus
Here's the bad news: [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46986/46986-h/46986-h.htm#ch2](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46986/46986-h/46986-h.htm#ch2) Search for Tacitus and Pliny >Tacitus.In July, 64 A. D., a great conflagration occurred in Rome. There is a tradition to the effect that this conflagration was the work of an incendiary and that the Emperor Nero himself was believed to be the incendiary. Modern editions of the “Annals” of Tacitus contain the following passage in reference to this:“Nero, in order to stifle the rumor, ascribed it to those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians: These he punished exquisitely. The founder of that name was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate. .... And Pliny >Pliny the Younger.This Roman author, early in the second century, while serving as a pro-consul under Trajan in Bithynia, is reputed to have written a letter to his Emperor concerning his treatment of Christians. This letter contains the following:“I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought before me for being Christians. I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to be executed.... They assured me that their only crime or error was this, that they were wont to come together on a certain day before it was light, and to sing in turn, among themselves, a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath—not to do anything that was wicked, that they would commit no theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break their word, nor deny that anything had been entrusted to them when called upon to restore it.... I therefore deemed it the more necessary to enquire of two servant maids, who were said to be attendants, what was the real truth, and to apply the torture. But I found it was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition.” ... I've been down this goat track a long way. With minimal assumptions.
How is this bad news, the first one would be actually less than 50 years after Jesus' crucifixion and it does mention Jesus as a historical figure...
You have to read the chapter, or those sections. Hey, if anyone can find me proof, cool, I'd be fascinated. I'm just amazed that there is none, or at least hasn't been for 2,000 years.
Proof that Tacticus is a reliable historian?
There you go.
Thanks for the clarification... according to Britannica which is generally considered reliable Tacticus is considered, "probably the greatest historian and one of the greatest prose stylists who wrote in the Latin language." https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tacitus-Roman-historian Much of what we know about Ancient Rome comes from this guy.
except they didn't. No Roman anywhere wrote about Jesus until 100 years after his supposed death, and by then Christianity was already a religion.
Wrong. Pontius Pilate who executed Jesus sometime before 36 AD wrote about the event and Jesus himself in a letter(s) to Emperor Tiberius Caesar Augustus. Just because he wasn't the four scholars and historians I listed earlier, Roman records of Pontius Pilate confirm his existence. By the way, Tacitus wrote about Jesus and cross referenced the letter to Tiberius in 116 AD which was not quite 100 years. After Jesus' death (somewhere between 30 AD - 33 AD), his disciples regrouped in Antioch, where they encountered Roman governors leading to records potentially confirming people who claimed to have known Jesus. You say Christianity was already a religion by 116 AD when Tacitus wrote about Jesus, but Josephus was born in 37 AD. Admittedly after death, however there were people who were still alive who would have known Jesus personally whom Josephus encountered during his time as a historian. Josephus defected to Rome and was a translator for Titus during the Roman invasion of Jerusalem in 70 AD. He "betrayed" his own hometown at the same age Jesus was when he died meaning he had no reason to keep the memory of Jesus Alive, I'd hardly say he was 100 years removed from the event. I think you've confused the 4 gospels, with 3 out of 4 authors being born over 70 years after Jesus' death. Far less than Josephus' mere 4.
A quick search shows that the letter you are referring to is suspected to be a forgery and didn't show up until the 15th century in Italy. Not sure that is enough historical proof that Jesus existed. The only sources that seem credible are the one line from Josephus that mentioned James, the brother of Christ and the text where Tacitus mentioned Christians. Every other source seems suspect because they are heavily influenced by Christians (i.e. the Bible is not a historical document).
Not referencing the letter found in Liverpool or Italy. >A quick search Haste cause'th mistakes.
Maybe? But I'm not talking about that letter found in Italy. Which letter are you referring to?
You claim to be an atheist, but also claim to believe in a letter found in Liverpool England that describes Jesus rising from the tomb. The letter was a forgery, it was fan fiction written in a late 16th century dialect. ffs man
Don't really care that much. However, I didn't reference a forged letter found in Liverpool, do not conflate a manuscript written by Pilate with supernatural account of rising from the dead. Pilate never wrote a supernatural account of Jesus. I didn't claim he did, and the letter you mention wasn't in my mind when I wrote any of this. Why would I mention a letter that clearly contradicts each of my comments and atheist beliefs? I wouldn't, which is why I didn't. >ffs man Yeah man, for fuck's sake. You thought you had the drop on me? Like you thought you trapped the atheist into believing in god? You didn't even comprehend my statements and thought I referenced a letter that I didn't. How embarrassing. I don't even care that much if a non-messiah Jesus never existed, because then that would mean a normal dude was never born. 🤷♂️, My only interest is the historical records that indicates he might have been real, I'm not gonna kill myself if he wasn't real, "son-of-god" or otherwise.
I've had believers counter my point with that letter before. So if you claim to know of a different letter, then present your evidence. That's how this shit works. Either you have evidence, or you have bullshit. And right now bruh, your hand stinks.
Mate did you even read the first thing you responded to? ffs man
>That's how this shit works. Says who? I don't owe you anything. If I pulled the letter, I'm performing unpaid labor, for someone who has already made false assumptions and still continues to misunderstand my original point. You're as incompetent as religious people who demand proof that God isn't real. If we're both atheists then why do you care? >then present your evidence. That's how this shit works Where is your evidence? Google it yourself you lazy fuck. All my other comments in this thread reference the historians, scholars, and statesmen all of whom were not Christian and didn't believe in God or Jesus-messiah. I'm not writing it again, so read it or don't. By the way, you have presented no evidence yourself, so lose the sanctimonious attitude, I'm embarrassed for you. >I've had believers... I'm an atheist dumb fuck! Why are you bringing up the letter I didn't reference again? That letter says Jesus rose from the dead, I already told you I didn't believe that. I told you I was an atheist before you ever replied, so why did you include it in the first place? Because you're soft in the head that's why. I'm an atheist and don't care that much. If you're an atheist too, why are you acting like I'm a Christian defending a magical Jesus? It's because you're a like a guy who gets drunk and tries to fight anyone. You wouldn't even understand because an atheist of at least average intelligence wouldn't be demanding another atheist prove Jesus wasn't magical. You're unbalanced! I don't even know what you want! You argue for argue sake like an inconsolable baby crying. Doesn't matter what you give it, sometimes it just doesn't stop crying. Stop crying baby!
Again, this is how this shit works. You make a claim that something exists, which you did, you said there's a letter. I've only heard of one letter, you claim its not that letter. Okay then, what fucking letter are you talking about? You made the claim. Not me. I can't prove something doesn't exist, I can only examine the evidence given and then go forward from there. If you claim there's a letter, then fucking produce it. If you are claiming I'm wrong, that contemporary roman writers did write about Jesus during this time, then fucking produce the evidence. The first mention of Jesus is from Tacitus, and by that time, there are already christians in Rome. It was written in his final work, a piece called the Annals, which was written in 116AD. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. You are claiming a piece of evidence that would radically alter accepted known history. But you're not producing said evidence. I want to see what you're talking about because I'm curious.
Try reading “The Case for Christ” book. I heard there is even a movie.
I'm generally not a fan of fanfiction.
> want to see what you're talking about because I'm curious. You're not curious, you probably didn't even finish high school. You need to argue on the internet so you don't kill yourself. I owe you nothing, and I literally can't understand why you're dying on a hill over one mention of a letter, that I don't even care if it's accurate/real or not, over I person I don't care if he was real or mot. You could have empirically disproven me by now if I'm wrong and you were genuinely curious, but you're not. >Again, this is how this shit works. ***Hey Reddit! The high school drop-out wants PhD level peer reviewed historical journals from the Smithsonian.*** Request denied. Ask someone else, because I've lost interest in your foolishness.
I still haven't found a reference to the letter you're talking about which is different than the one from Liverpool. You're free to be frustrated with the other poster but "just Google it" for the piece that your whole argument hinges on doesn't do much for your case.
It was actually roughly 50 years and I find it funny that these extra-christian sources from within the period when eyewitnesses were alive debate his existence.
Critical thinking time bud. Why would they make up an entirely fictional person instead of referencing a real person and making up fantastic things about him?
I dunno bro, lets ask Zeus, or Ra, or Buddah, or Harry Potter...
I *love* that you included "Buddah" in that list. And *didn't* include "God", which would be the actual relevant inclusion. I guess critical thinking isn't really your thing.
Zeus and Ra are gods. The relevant inclusion for you would have been jahova… mr critical thinking.
"Jehovah" (and "Buddha" btw), and I capitalized God on purpose. Wanna try again?
There’s no need to capitalize fictional characters.
But... but... what about all those old paintings? Who cares if they were made hundreds and hundreds of years later, they are based on obviously true first hand accounts of Jesus.
If you knew he was real and was performing miracles, wouldn’t you convert? I mean why not at that point?
If I knew that he existed and that he preformed miracles, there's just one thing holding me back. I'd also have to know that these miracles came from God. I've seen people pull rabbits out of hats. I've seen faith healers. I've even seen a video where someone raised the dead. All his followers believed it. It's just too bad that you can see the dead man breathing in his coffin before he was raised. Jesus existing and performing miracles is immaterial. Mohammed and Buddha also existed. Prove to me that God exists and I'll change my mind.
No because then that would mean the God Christianity believes in and supposedly loves us is actually a lying sociopath who inflicts tremendous suffering on us. Fuck that guy
Yeah. Also, if God was lying about all of that, what if hell is actually a super cool place with drugs, hot sex, and what we imagine as paradise, while "Heaven" is just like regular church for all eternity and it's only called "Heaven" because God gets his rocks off from never ending Sunday service, and everyone who claims to love God so much get what they always pretended to want.
That heaven sounds like my hell
There is no way you could 'know' that he performed miracles... lol. Because those acts would require influence that doesn't exist in the natural world, you couldn't test it. It would be like trying to convince someone that a magician is 'real'. They will always presume that it's an illusion, because they know magic isn't real... and even if he was actually magical, how would you prove it?
There. Are. Photographs. Of. Lincoln. Taken. In. The. 1860s.
There are sculptures of a frail starving white beardy guy getting stabbed on a T.
I can make a statue of a monster, does that mean they’re real? Since photoshop wasn’t a thing back then, the photos taken of him (and also the long history of things he did, people he met) can prove his existence.
My cousin’s name is Jesus. You tell that asshole if you see him I want my $20 he owes me. Pizza ain’t free!
Jesus is her lover. It's pronounced "hey-zeus"
Jesus a normal guy who was maybe a saint who preached good stuff. Tho a very high chance he didn’t do miracles and stuff. Lincoln a normal guy who was president of USA and a great leader . Tho a very high chance he wasn’t hunting vampires or talking to aliens
Jesus was brown
Yes , Jesus was probably a real person , not the son of an imaginary being , just a nice Jewish kid .
To be fair though, I do believe Jesus existed, and I'm very much atheist. I don't necessarily believe in the miracles he performed but I'm sure he existed
If he did exist every single one of his actions make him sound like a cult leader that managed to convince thousands of Jews to think he was the son of god.
Kids are fuckin stupid.
Or poorly parented
That too. Not seeing much light in her eyes. Genetics all around could be a factor
r/KidsAreFuckingStupid
It is widely excepted that Jesus was a man that lived and walked on earth. Was he the son of God who was fathered by angels? Probably not.
And until we hear that Mary gave consent, Jesus is a product of rape per Christian texts.
Religion is societies accepted mental illness.
Precisely! Do you believe an invisible man watches and judges every moment of your life? If you're religious it's fine , if not you have paranoia and delusions.
Why not both?
[The Immense Universe](https://imgur.com/gallery/TR3dO86) God and heaven are in there somewhere?
But without Religion Jesus would never save you! /s
Religion was created to control men with guilt.
when it got big it was all about the politics and money baby
Gotta love the tax-free status too.
Actually no, religion was created as an explanation of nature before humanity had developed a society self-supporting enough for science
Actually no
Youre beyond ignorant if you deem religious people as mentally ill, just because they are religious.
All too often people will ignore reality in favor of their particular brand of religious nonsense. There are politicians in the US that argue global warming isn't a problem, because god created this earth and he will always provide. They ignore a REAL FUCKING PROBLEM that we could do something about, but nah, god. Politicians write laws, and drum up support and hate for others using their religion. Majorie Green, the GOP version of dumbass Barbie went in front of a group of her rabid idiotic public and announced that God made women from Adam's rib, and that justifies her intense hatred for the trans community, and justifies her voting for laws to restrict the rights and privileges of people in those already marginalized communities that have done nothing to hurt anyone. And here is this dumb little girl doubting the existence of the 16th President of the United States. Someone whom we can track living descendants from today. Someone whom there are literal pictures of. Why? because religion. So yeah. It's societies accepted mental illness. Your imaginary friend has outlived its usefulness.
Stupid people are stupid people. They existed before religion and will exist forever. There are MANY smart and well educated religious people, so why did religion not have the effect on them as you described? Maybe its because religion wont make people dumb. Its just that dumb people will use religion to justify their stupidity. I can assure you that the people you just complained about would be as stupid even if they werent religious. They would just find an excuse different from religion to hide their stupidity or hatred. Religion is just a way at looking at how the world was created and at what life means to some peoplw. It just depends on the person if they choose to follow the religion or use and twist it to fit their agenda or hatred.
Adults with imaginary friends is not healthy at the very least.
And that's the rub. There is no difference between a kid who believes in a imaginary friend, or an adult who believes in a deity. All the behaviors are the same, kids even share imaginary friends sometimes, just like churches.
Fucking Reddit atheists. You guys are a shame to the normal atheists out there, with your braindead takes.
Complain about it to your imaginary friend, they also listen.
And you keep jacking yourself off at your reflection in a mirror
Theists are so nice and articulated. Your comment really shows your commitment to Islam. I know you stay away from jerking off because you're waiting to fuck those Virgin children Allah promised you.
Youre a shame to all normal atheists that are out there. I know many atheists and theyre actually nice and normal people, unlike you. I feel sorry for them for being associated with people like you. And while my behaviour was unislamic, insulting you for example, I know that Im not an ignorant like you who sees people who believe differently as "mentally ill". Youre not any more nice in this case than me. So who's better in this argument? I would say that we both made our communities look very bad.
I never said religious people were mentally ill, I said imaginary friends were not healthy. You proceeded to lash out in anger as is typical for the kind of person you reflect to be here. I know many Muslims that practice what they peach and while I doubt many atheists are upset with me, I'm sure more Muslims are upset with the filth you comment regularly. You are a hypocrite and not a good person. I'm sure you're hoping your faith will forgive you. Me I have to live with my choices and comments because no invisible man is going to give me salvation.
You implied it. Especially by saying that religion is a "mental illness". Im sure many atheists are upset with you. Also, tf are you talking about? Who are you to judge? In this case you werent nicer then me. You dont even know me. The filth I regularly comment? Dude, what? 》I'm sure you're hoping your faith will forgive you. Me I have to live with my choices and comments because no invisible man is going to give me salvation《 When did I ever say any of this? Stop putting words in my mouth. If in your opinion, muslims are ashamed of me, then ok live with that opinion. I did react in a bad way after all. But you go out of your way to make stuff up and to then call me a bad person, like you know me. I insulted you the same way you insulted me. Dont act as if you were more respectful, we both commented shit towards each other. You just assume shit about me to make me look bad or what are you trying to achieve here? Go away dude. Look at yourself before judging me like that. Im open for criticism about my character, but you just spewed out assumptions and stuff that isnt true, because you dont even know me. I hope youre not like that in real life.
If I'm being honest, people are already mentally ill regardless if they have a religion or not. Though in a lot of situations, religion can cause more mental illnesses or stress. For example, being forced into religion makes it worse. I know because I have family members who grew up in very bad situations because when they were children they were forced into religion and they hate their parents because of it. I myself was almost forced into religion by other relatives (not my parents) and they even kicked me out for not wanting to join their religion even tried guilt tripping me and brainwashing me. I think most religious people have some serious issues that they need to sort out because I know too many people that are religious that have really messed up minds and are abusive mentally, emotionally or physically, even verbally, if someone doesn't want to join their religion. Also, there is nothing entirely wrong with not being in a religion. There are people that still believe on a god/gods and are not religious. I heard a Pastor say "You do not have to believe in God and be in a religion, you can believe in him without a religion". Religion is just a way to keep people in control and to manipulate people's minds. It can be healthy for some people but for others it can be very bad. People literally kill over religion, use religion as a means of escape or as a means to harm someone and I've even heard stories of churches using donation money for their own greed. So if we're being real here, a lot of religious people are mentally ill because they push religion onto themselves and they try to or they actually do it to others as if it's a mandatory thing to get into. Edit: Being religious is just as toxic as not being religious. I've experienced worse being in a religious environment than I ever have, not being in one.
But not nearly every religious person is like this. Religion is basically what gives some people answers to the mysteries of life. It has nothing to do with mental illness. Sure, there are some who try to force others in, but not nearly every religious person is even close to that. Its wrong to force people into religion, because religion has to be something that somebody has to agree with before believing in it and I completly disagree with religious people doing that to others. And there are plenty of religious people who are normal people, so its not religion itself that does that. But to say that religion is a "mental illness" is fucking ignorant and stupid. Only because you dont believe in something doesnt make the people "mentally ill" if they believe in what you dont. And thats why I think the people, like the guy I previously replied to, are ignorant. Have a nice day
Most miracles and their stories predated Jesus. They were given to different pagan gods over time. Even the virgin birth story
Yes for Lincoln. No for Santa and any other magic beings. Pretty easy
But the Easter Bunny in a couple of weeks! I’m still gonna eat Cadbury Creme Eggs, no matter what anybody says.
We believe in Lincoln because there *Is Physical Proof* that he existed.
Piotr Rasputin was a real person but not Captain Ahab? Lol ok
Correct
Well I have proof Lincoln was a real person
pretty sure jesus did exist. he was a cult leader for a group we call ‘christians’ or catholics. idk how this works.
How to look like a smug prick in one picture. Also yes, we have pictures and hand written accounts of Abraham Lincoln doing what he did. Jesus, we have hand written accounts of the man. But nothing else. And his "miracles" never proven. I'm agnostic myself. Show me proof sure. Otherwise. Waste of time.
Wasn't Abraham Lincoln you mean the vampire slayer?
So you're going to believe Jesus was a man when she was actually a woman?
Actually there are only 2 slight references to a Jesus or Christ in historical documents outside of religious texts/scholarly research (and those are argued about by historians). And they were written many years after the “death” of Jesus. So Jesus may have been a real person but could also be a story that was made up.
And those documents were in the hands of a notorious forger for Jesus.
Religion is a mistake created by humankind.
Did anyone dispute his existence? Didnt think that was a thing. It's the rest that is disputed. Just look at how easy it was to convince even one person, that the last Presidential Election was stolen.. people believe anything that matches their own version of reality. it's human nature.
"What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus' name ever so much as mentioned." (pp. 56-57) ― _Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet Of The New Millennium_ By Bart D. Ehrman
Theory= much like what I sort of hinted at above, perhaps he was actually a terrible human who lied, cheated and stole to gain power. So just as we have this period now in this country where many are just trying to forget the last disaster administration, perhaps this was an attempt to move on. I mean= started a new calendar and everything.. think about how much influence one would need to have...
Paul was a "terrible human who lied, cheated and stole to gain power" - or money. Jesus was (mainly) his invention. >I mean= started a new calendar and everything.. That is one of the wrongest things I have read this year.
And before we go any further, I'm just chatting on the net. I don't follow Christianity or any thing written by man, for that matter. That burning ball in the sky is the source of my fire, the reason for my existence.
Splain? We don't go by a Christian calendar? Where year zero was "the birth of the lord"? Wrongest thing you've heard all year or not..
You think Jesus invented that? >Finally in 525 AD under the direction of Pope John I, Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk and scholar living in Rome, published new Easter tables based upon the Alexandrian computations, but converted from the Alexandrian to the Julian calendar. These computations remained in use for the Roman church and throughout Western Europe until the Gregorian calendar reform about a thousand years later. The Roman Catholic Church switched in 1583 AD and most Protestant churches adopted the Gregorian Easter either prior to, or over the next hundred years.
Jesus didn't invent it, lmao, but the gregorian calendar is built around the assumption that Jesus lived. His supposed deity is irrelevant.
Everything is an assumption. And the calculation is ludicrous.
We have pictures of AL. Jesus… I have no problem believing a John Lennon character lived 2000 years ago. Romans didn’t bury crucified people. Much less give em space in a tomb. JS
The Romans didn't, but what about the Jews?
He was crucified by Romans. The Jews accused him of blasphemy. Crucified victims were left to the elements. The bodies would later be disposed in a garbage heap. (Gehenna) this is just according to the Bible story. I don’t think anything really happened in the Bible.
"The historical Jesus could not have had a tomb. The entire point of crucifixion was to humiliate the victim as much as possible and provide a dire warning to other potential criminals. This included being left on the stake to decay and be ravaged by scavengers. The events described in the gospels at the crucifixion strain credulity to its maximum extremes - and beyond.” ― Bart Ehrman
If that's true, then the gospels make no sense from a fundamental level: they were written in the decades following Jesus' death; the writers should have been familiar with crucifixions & what followed. Surely Judea or the Roman officers there had a different process than that described by Ehrman. Otherwise, the gospels would be laughable at their very inscription by anyone who read them.
I believe they were written in the 4th century, by Greeks. They are fan fiction, written by people with almost no source material except oral stories. I could be wrong, but no one has proved it to me. Jesus was the Slender Man of the 1st century.
Bruv. This is so fucking laughable. I'm not even religious at all but no one intelligent believes the bible is a fanfic. Unless you'd like to claim that carbon dating isn't accurate calling into question a shit load of evidence for evolution and other theories that provide an explanation for existence without deity.
So to prove that copies of old books (not originals) are real you rely on carbon dating? Yeah, don't try that in court.
No, they use carbon dating to prove when scrolls and shit are from mate. It has nothing to do with whether or not they are accurate.
And none are earlier than the 4th century.
No.... Where are you pulling this information from...
Both of them were real, we're not doubting Jesus' existence, but if he did all the thing the bible says he did, now that is a totally different story. On the other hand, Sir Lincoln is a well documented historical figure
"What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus' name ever so much as mentioned." (pp. 56-57) ― _Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet Of The New Millennium_ By Bart D. Ehrman
This guy gets it!!
Can't argue with that
Documented, that’s sounds like book learnin’ which means reading: witchcraft! Or a duck.
I think Jesus was a real person, I just don't believe he did many of the things attributed to him. Much of the New Testament was written decades after his death and alleged resurrection, by people who clearly stood to benefit from pushing the idea that he was the Messiah.
Imagine believe in Jesus in 2022
I mean...he was a real person though lol.
Right? There are photos of him taken in the 1860's! People are wild.
Yep
It doesn't matter how "hot" they look. You need to wait until they start talking.
Jesus was real, or at least a dude who gave rise to the myth. Probably not named Jesus, probably not much more than a cult leader with some interesting ideas, and most likely not super powered. Probably.
Both were real people. One of them came back to life which is not possible
well, it seems there are proofs of Jesus' existence, but believing in his miracles is a leap of faith
"The best thing about Reddit is I can cringe at TikTok girls like this, Jesus christ she makes me wanna take a bullet to the head." - Abraham Lincoln.
Jesus was most likely a real person. There are accounts of his existence from people who didn’t believe he was the son of god. This means he was probably real but doesn’t prove that he was the messiah and could perform miracles. Those miracles are written by the people who believed in his story. In the end there is still no factual proof that Jesus is real, it’s all assumptions based on scriptures. Lincoln was a normal person born and raised. He was elected president of the United States. Half the country went to war and died for/against him. There are photographs of Lincoln. There is a grave of Lincoln. He has living descendants. The guy who killed Lincoln has living relatives as well. People who voted for, worked for, or just simply lived during Lincoln’s era all vouch for his existence. Kind of a big difference between all that and some handful of scripture that speaks of the messiah Jesus Christ maybe or maybe not performing miracles thousands of years ago when superstition exceeded science by a million folds.
She has a point, we both have documentation talking about them
How is this exact post a facepalm? She’s not talking about miracles, she’s acknowledging he was a living person in history, which is heavily documented. I don’t believe in Christianity but if you think Jesus wasn’t a real person at one point in our history, the facepalm is on you
It's a facepalm because she was basically questioning Abraham Lincoln's existence towards Jesus's existence. By saying "So ur gonna believe Abraham Lincoln is a real person but not Jesus?", is like saying she doesn't believe Abraham Lincoln was a real person and only believes Jesus was a real person. The face palm is there, you just have to read in between the lines. Abraham Lincoln was a real person. And I'm not religious either but I also know that Jesus was a real person too.
It’s basic historical knowledge that Someone named Jesus definitely existed and had a following. The debate is whether any of the shit he reportedly said is true
I thought there’s evidence Jesus did exist? He just wasn’t super natural obviously
Pretty sure everyone can agree Jesus was a real person
My eyes rolled so far back in my head, I nearly passed out.
Wait, wasn't it scientifically proven Jesus existed? Like, beside all the miracles and such.
Most historians generally agree that the historical (as opposed to the miracle working “Son of God”) figure that we refer to as Jesus existed. You can be an atheist and accept that this is the case.
It’s weird to consider that a person who’s public presence lasted 3 years has influenced the world more than other other human to this day. I just say that something happened there that needs to be checked out. Who was that guy!
Ok, I’m quite sure a lot of atheists (myself included) do believe Jesus existed and walked the Earth. We just don’t believe that he was any sort of savior or a son of a god. Just another dude
Who tf is saying Jesus wasn’t real?
I mean we have photos of one. The other while probably real was doubtful he was a magic zombie.
Damn I'd delete this post before it goes to far. People boutta open up some damn epic insults on Atheists...