Atheists, do you believe Jesus existed or not?

I’ve noticed there are atheists who accept Jesus’ existence….. and atheists who don’t…

So where do ya belong?

  • Yes
    71% (17)52% (11)62% (28)Vote
  • No
    29% (7)48% (10)38% (17)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
6|15

Most Helpful Girl

  • Interesting not believe in his existence when they have found gospels in Egypt, Ethiopia of to the first century. in the finding of Constantinople he is also noted and in several Roman writings as well that have been found. Fact is yeshua of Nazareth existed , now you may not believe what he did but he was alive and noted. Even the Roman soldier who noted him after his supposed resurrection,

    0|0
    0|0

Most Helpful Guy

  • Historians including Thallus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, as well as at least one authentic reference from Josephus are matters of record. In addition, 11 of the 12 Apostles sacrificed their lives to spread the Gospel of a man whom they knew intimately and in the face of horrific persecution with nothing to gain. Not to mention myriad martyrs. Only a buffoon could question the existence of Jesus, or his divinity.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Nope. All of those references all have the Gospels as their source text. None of them are independent. None of the Apostles sacrificed their lives. Those were later Christian forgeries, we don't know what happened to these so-called martyrs.

    • Show All
    • A reference that's completely undermined by the historical record. See? I can copy and paste too. www.washingtonpost.com/.../ That doesn't demonstrate anything.

    • What my reference presented were a rather large succession of hostile mom-biblical accounts proving to anyone not flatly in irrational denial that Jedus not only existed, but was believed by A significant number of people to have been the "Christ". Not even the Jews will argue these points, only irrational God-haters. I was hoping you might care to cote each of the historical accounts provided in the Cold Case Christianity article, and discredit them one by one. Anything less would be disingenuous.

What Girls Said 5

  • it would have been nice to have an extra option for people who do believe, to make the poll results more accurate.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Why? It was a question fer atheists exclusively... so a third option's needless...

    • yes, but knowing this site, you will have all kinds of people answering, so it's nice to cater to them all. just saying.

  • I believe he existed. In those days, many people were crucified. It doesn't make him any more special than the thousands of others hanging from crosses. What sets me apart from any form of religion is that I do not believe he was resurrected or that he performed miracles.

    1|1
    0|0
  • I'm not an atheist but I have known atheists who believed there was a man named Jesus, but they want more and more proof that he existed, and because they don't get the physical proof they are looking for, it's easier to deny Him. But even Jesus said in the book of John 20:29 "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." LOVE this verse :)

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'm not sure, I'm pretty in the fence about this. Eh, maybe I'm leaning towards yes he was a historical figure. Not really sure, it's a possibility.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I believe he existed. I don't believe in the miracles and all the things he supposedly did though.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Then what's the point in believe in him without miracles. that's dumb 🙄

    • @DheElon I don't believe in him. I believe he was a real person at some point, not just "made out". I don't believe he was the son of "god" or that miracles exist. Read what I wrote.

What Guys Said 14

  • While his existence can't be completely ruled out, it hasn't been proven in any way. There is absolutely NO shred of credible, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. None of the extra-biblical scribes who wrote about Jesus have actually lived during Jesus' time. The first extra-biblical source is from 30 years AFTER his death. That's about as credible as me writing about some random guy who died in the 1950s and has left no personal records and hasn't been noted in any book. All the accounts of Jesus that we have are hear-say reports.
    As for the biblical sources (and this includes Paul), there are also several problems. First of all, the bible claims all kinds of things that are clearly lies (such as stories about virgin births). This makes the whole account as such less credible. Imagine somebody told you about an old friend they had but they would also tell you stuff like "my old friend walked on water". Wouldn't that make you question the whole story as such? But perhaps even more importantly, the bible is not what most people think it is. Christians don't really get this unfortunately but when you open a King James bible, you can't find any fingerprints of Jesus on the paper. The new testaments that we read in our modern books are copies of copies of copies of copies of translations of translations of hear-says of interpretations of copies. And when I say copies, I don't mean identical duplicates made with a modern printer, I mean medieval monks sitting in a monastery and copying stuff by hand. It was completely normal for scribes in those times to add or manipulate things in a text you wrote or copied. It wasn't considered bad as it is today (I happen to be a historian myself, so I know a thing or two about this). Furthermore, none of the originals have survived the millenia. Under these circumstances, it would be ludicrous to just assume that Jesus has existed.
    Like I said: it's possible he did. I'm not saying he certainly didn't. But at the current time, there is absolutely no scientific evidence for such a claim.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I think Jesus is a collection of legends which emperor Constantine considered interesting to build a unified religion in his empire.

    That said, there were many rabbis preaching in Jerusalem during that period and Yoshua was a common first name there and then. Thus the probability of a rabbi Yoshua with a little sect of followers is high in my opinion.

    Would that rabbi Yoshua have lived the life and done everything and described in the gospels? Forget it.

    The Gospels are a collection of old oral legends about several persons, from different countries and religions carefully pieced together and retold to become the story translated and written down by Saint Jerome.

    Saint Jerome really merits a Nobel Prize for literature for his Vulgata.

    0|1
    0|0
    • St. Jerome didn't write the New Testament though, we have to be clear about that.

    • Show All
    • @MasterofPlebs I remember seeing the Vaticanicus. Here's the Sinaiticus: http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx
      Here's part of the Nag Hammadi:

      http://www.gnosis.org/images/coptic.gif

  • I'm just indifferent to it, I don't really care if he existed or not.

    1|2
    0|0
  • Yes he existed, but his super natural abilities have been... overstated. In addition who Jesus's father was has been exaggerated.

    This was a time when claims of virgin births were commonplace, as the shame of admitting to a rape was rather high, plus you'd be able to maintain your perceived virginity for a future husband.

    0|1
    0|0
  • It's just a name really, so there could have easily been a cult leader back in the day named Jesus, it doesn't mean he was the son of a god or performed miracles or anything. He was probably the equivalent of a modern day televangelist.

    1|1
    0|0
  • I've met some who kind of do.

    0|0
    0|0
  • A man named Jesus may have existed in some capacity, but certainly not as written.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I wonder how many religious people voted to see what the vote was only to ruin the results because there wasn't an option that simply says I am not an athiest.

    0|0
    0|0
  • He might have, he might not have.

    I think the probability of existence is less than the probability of non-existence currently.

    0|1
    0|0
    • I disagree. I'm 100% certain that he existed, even if the religious aspects are questionable. On top of the gospels and epistles of the New Testament, there is the entire testimony of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, hymnography of the Church, and a few brief albeit exaggerated and non-contemporary mentions in the Roman historical record. Not to mention that early Christians were willing to die for belief in him, and that he is also apparently mentioned in the Jewish Talmud.

    • @JRICHARDS1996 The Ante-Nicene fathers are decades after he lived. Hymnography means nothing, there is hymnography about all sorts of non-existent religious figures like John Frum and Tom Navy. The mentions in the Roman historical record all amount to either a) confirming the existence of Christians, b) interpolations by later Christians, or c) reports based on what Christians were saying, i. e., meaning the source for this information were the Gospels and not independent sources.

      Early Christians WERE NOT willing to die for him. That is actually a huge mythology, based upon forgery upon forgery of martyrdom stories that Christians made up. This is discussed in "The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom" and "Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are."

      The Jewish Talmud is not a source. It's oral tradition and it's much later after Jesus.

  • Jesus existed, but he wasn't the son of god.

    1|1
    0|0
  • He did.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Well I don't necessarily believe in god, but since there is actual evidence or recorded journals (in this case the bible) I do believe in Jesus. I just don't believe in god because it seems so unlikely that someone has these type of "superpowers"

    0|0
    0|0
  • Maybe, but let's look at the reality... if Jesus were born in modern times - he would have ended up in a mental hospital for saying he was a "son of a god". So, if he really existed, in his backward time, it was easy for him to gather followers, cause most of the people were superstitious, ignorant, naive, credulous, gullible and therefore - easily influenced by his fantasies.

    0|0
    0|0
  • He wasn't written about by any historian outside of the 4 gospels.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Paul. The Gospels are literary allegories and parabolic tales. Paul is the only serious source for anything about Jesus. And only his authentic epistles, not the forgeries.

    • Show All
    • @JRICHARDS1996 Just because he mentions the mystical supper does not mean he related it as a story of Jesus told on Earth, as a historical person walking around Galilee. Paul's only sources were Scripture (meaning the Old Testament) and Revelation, he says this in Galatians. He never mentions human tradition, he actually condemns it. His story about the mystical supper was given to him through a revelation, not through any historical tradition about Jesus.

    • Paul never met Jesus.

Loading...