Why do so many atheists deny the existence of an historical Jesus?

136 posts / 0 new
Last post
Militant_Atheist's picture
I was in your camp too but

I was in your camp too but Richard Carrier, robert price and david fitzgerald changed that. I'm now of the opinion that there was no Jesus and if there was, his basis is so far removed from the biblical accounts that there might as well not have been one at all

Do you seriously believe that Jesus lived and died in outer space? Or that he was made from David's sperm, which was stored in a cosmic sperm bank in heaven? Because this is exactly what mythicists like Richard Carrier teach.

The mythicist viewpoint is so ridiculous, so out to lunch, it's difficult to understand how anyone can take it seriously.

I think you should reconsider the evidence.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ MA

@ MA

Just another lying theist.

Read what Richard Carrier actually says you muppet. Fuck, you guys must love the smell of your own shit.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13387

I am not a fan of Carrier's at all, but to lie about his views in a debate just shows your complete lack of moral character MA.

Militant_Atheist's picture
How am I lying about Carrier

How am I lying about Carrier's views? This is from your source:

What I think is most likely is that Paul means what the first Christians he is mimicking no doubt meant, that God manufactured Jesus out of sperm taken directly from David’s belly exactly as prophecy declared he would (a concept already more rational than God manufacturing Eve from a rib taken directly from Adam’s side). Which, if Jesus didn’t exist, would most likely have occurred in outer space (although that’s not necessarily the case—ahistoricity is also compatible with earthly events imagined in distant mythical places, like Eden: OHJ, Ch. 11, n. 67—but the cosmic hypothesis has more evidence and precedent). More on that later. But it is this “cosmic sperm” hypothesis that Tweet thinks is implausible. He ignored, of course, all the evidence I presented in OHJ establishing it is plausible, and indeed the most plausible hypothesis yet on offer. But for now let’s just grasp the nature of the problem before we examine the solution. ...

That’s surely what many Jews had to resort to to rescue the prophecy. But it’s awkward. What isn’t awkward? Taking the verse literally: the seed God took from David’s “belly” will indeed itself, without cessation or break, sit an eternal throne and be “the Son of God.” And that requires a cosmic sperm bank. Because history left a huge gap of no throne sat. The cosmic seed hypothesis is thus the only one that makes God tell entirely the truth. So it surely would have been attractive, indeed it surely would have felt so brilliant as to be divinely inspired, to anyone who needed it.

Does this not sound ridiculous to you? A "cosmic sperm bank" in heaven? This is your mythicist champion? Or did you even bother reading the article?

Btw, I'm an atheist. Believe it or not, I despise all religion.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ MA Fuckas sake mate

@ MA Fuckas sake mate

What the fuck are you on?

Can you read intelligently?

Have another go. Or at least email Carrier and cop a load of abuse for being as thick as shite.

Militant_Atheist's picture
Are you kidding me? What do

Are you kidding me? What do you take this for? I just went through that steaming pile of rubbish to read about Jesus being made from King David's sperm and cosmic sperm banks.

It's great for a laugh, I admit, but anyone with the slightest acquaintance with biblical scholarship, ancient and modern, knows it's a load of bollocks.

You're not seriously telling me you're foolish enough to believe that tripe?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Well said Mikhael. Have an

Well said Mikhael. Have an agree.

cranky47's picture
@Militant Atheist :

@Militant Atheist :

As far as I'm aware there is no scholarly consensus of the historicity of Jesus. Even if there were, it is insufficient reason for believing in itself. That's a logical fallacy called 'argument from consensus.' IE a claim must be able to stand on its own merits, not simply on the authority of anyone who has made that claim.

I'm sure a lot of atheists reject the notion of an historical Jesus. BUT such a rejection has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is about one and one one thing ;a disbelief in god(s),.NOTHING ELSE MAY BE INFERRED--Atheism is not a belief system, a philosophy , a political position or a club .

I take an historical perspective on the existence of Jesus from my position as a secular humanist and skeptic . Nothing to dow with my atheism.

There is no contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus. Not an uncommon situation about an ancient figure. However, an absence of evidence is not proof of absence, although it suggest it.

My position is that there MAY have been wandering rabbi in first century Judea called something like Yeshua/Yoshua bar Yusuf. Wandering rabbis were common in that place and time. That he may have founded a small Jewish sect. That he upset the wrong people and got himself crucified. The Romans crucified thousand of Jews during their occupation.

That the poor little rabbi has nothing to do with the religion which came to be called "Christianity" from around the fourth century. , Christians tend to cling the fantasy that Christianity emerged whole and homogeneous in the first century . It did not. **

Art best, any claims about Jesus are educated guesses. Imo his existence is unfalsifiable. IE so far, nobody has been able to prove his existence one way or t'other. Hence I am only able to speak of 'perhaps, or 'may'

** Lost Christianities , The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew"

Bart D. Ehrman

Militant_Atheist's picture
As far as I'm aware there is

As far as I'm aware there is no scholarly consensus of the historicity of Jesus.

There is indeed a scholarly consensus:

Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[2][19][20] Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."[21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Historical_existence

Even if there were, it is insufficient reason for believing in itself. That's a logical fallacy called 'argument from consensus.' IE a claim must be able to stand on its own merits, not simply on the authority of anyone who has made that claim.

It's not a fallacy to appeal to a scholarly consensus when it's based on logic and evidence.

That the poor little rabbi has nothing to do with the religion which came to be called "Christianity" from around the fourth century. , Christians tend to cling the fantasy that Christianity emerged whole and homogeneous in the first century . It did not. **

The emergence of Christianity is best explained by an historical Jesus, even though he never founded it.

Art best, any claims about Jesus are educated guesses. Imo his existence is unfalsifiable. IE so far, nobody has been able to prove his existence one way or t'other. Hence I am only able to speak of 'perhaps, or 'may'

That's not true. We have near contemporaneous independent confirmation of Jesus's historicity by Jewish and Roman historians, corroborating what Paul and the gospel writers had to say about Jesus. That's a lot better than what we have for many other historical figures, whose historicity is taken for granted.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ MA

@ MA

Once again you are plagiarising Wiki without proper acknowledgement.

Be warned our mods take unkindly to this sort of behaviour.

It says much more about your complete lack of moral and ethical compass than it does of any atheist on these boards.

(Edit) Did you even know Michael Grants pedigree before quoting? I suspect not. You muppet.

Militant_Atheist's picture
Isn't it brutally obvious

Isn't it brutally obvious from all the footnotes that it's from wiki?

You're acting like it's a wall of text, instead of just a few sentences you can't be arsed to read.

I'll provide a link next time to make it more obvious.

David Killens's picture
FFS please, when you quote

FFS please, when you quote from an article, provide the link to the source. If not, you place this forum into legal jeopardy, and also deceive people into believing you are the source or actually know what you are talking about.

A lot more honesty is requested, please.

It is not incumbent for the reader to determine if plagiarizing is going on, it is the responsibility of the author to make sure the sources are mentioned.

Militant_Atheist's picture
Stop whining. It's not

Stop whining. It's not plagiarism, since it's obviously from Wiki and is always quoted as a supporting source. Why not try countering the information they contain instead of using this as a convenient excuse to avoid serious discussion on a topic of interest?

Cognostic's picture
RE: Militant_Atheist:

RE: Militant_Atheist: "Scholars of antiquity agree." In the immortal words of Buggs Bunny "What a Maroon!" No fucking shit! Everyone in antiquity was religious or dead.

GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON TO THINK JESUS EXISTED AS A MAN. JUST ONE. GIVE US YOUR BEST BIT OF EVIDENCE AND STOP ALL THE BULLSHIT.

Militant_Atheist's picture
I've given you more than

I've given you more than enough evidence. How about the fact Jesus is mentioned by some of the ancient world's most reliable and accurate historians?

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Militant Atheist

Re: Militant Atheist

...*double face palm*.... *grooooooan*.... Aw, geez. Another one?... *heavy sigh*... Wonder whose hand is up this one's ass?

Tin-Man's picture
@MA Re: "As far as we know,

@MA Re: "As far as we know, Paul never denied meeting Jesus."

Oh. Well then, in that case, I never denied meeting the Wizard of Oz. By your reasoning, I suppose that makes the Mighty Wizard real.

Hot damn! In your faces, Cog and Old Man! No way now you two awizardists can dispute the existance of the Mighty Wizard of Oz. Ha!... *thumbing nose at both of you*...

...*rubbing hands together briskly*.... Ahhhh, yes. Now to prove the flying monkeys were real. Help me out here, MA! You've been doing GREAT so far!

Militant_Atheist's picture
That's actually a counter to

That's actually a counter to those mythicists who think Paul not meeting Jesus actually proves anything, not "my reasoning."

Cognostic's picture
RE: Romans 1:3 (Nothing

RE: Romans 1:3 (Nothing about the ministry of Jesus or Jesus being a living human being.)

"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from[c] faith for his name’s sake. 6 And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from[c] faith for his name’s sake. 6 And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ."

PAUL IS CALLED TO BE A SERVANT OF JESUS THROUGH HIS SCRIPTURES AND HOLY PROPHETS. NOTHING ABOUT JESUS EXISTING. NOTHING.

Militant_Atheist's picture
In Romans 1:3, Paul literally

In Romans 1:3, Paul literally says Jesus "was a descendant of David." Is this not acknowledgement of the historical existence of Jesus?

Here's the passage in context:

1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Work on your reading comprehension skills.

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

No
David Killens's picture
Referenece your post (#38)

Referenece your post (#38) you stated "I'll provide a link next time to make it more obvious."

Your dishonesty is starting the create a stench

Cognostic's picture
@Militant_Atheist

@Militant_Atheist
RE: Romans 5:15 "5 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! "

YOU ARE JUST QUOTING SHIT YOU HAVE HEARD WITHOUT ACTUALLY READING ANYTHING.

ARE YOU REALLY THAT LAME! ROMANS 5- 15 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS AS A REAL PERSON.

THIS IS FUCKING STUPID. CITE YOUR SOURCE AND GIVE THE FRIGGING QUOTE.

I'VE GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN RUN DOWN YOUR INCOMPETENT ASSERTIONS.

PROVE JESUS EXISTED. GIVE ONE PIECE, YOUR BEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE. JUST ONE SOLID PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND I WILL AGREE WITH YOU. WHAT-CHA GOT?

Militant_Atheist's picture
You don't understand the

You don't understand the passage because of your poor reading comprehension skills.

In Romans 5:15, Paul says:

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

He's saying that Jesus was a man, a human being. Again, he is acknowledging Jesus's historicity.

Cognostic's picture
Now quoting the Bible as if

Now quoting the Bible as if it is a history source. Are you serious! FFS 30.000 Christian sects all knowing they have their version of the bible correct and it takes a moronic non-believer to figure it all out for us. LUCKY US!

David Killens's picture
Cog, I don't think he

Cog, I don't think he understands that the bible is the claim, not the proof.

Cognostic's picture
@David: I think we have

@David: I think we have found the elusive empty space the Christians keep talking about.

Militant_Atheist's picture
You reveal your ignorance of

@David Killens

You reveal your ignorance of historical method with every post. The disparate writings of the "New Testament" can indeed be read as historical documents and can be used as proof for claims of an historical nature.

Militant_Atheist's picture
The "bible" is an anachronism

The "bible" is an anachronism, at least in this context. What we have is a collection of disparate writings from the 1st century AD that can be read as historical documents. In fact, the majority of historians and biblical scholars treat these documents as historical sources, albeit with varying degrees of historical reliability.

Textual criticism has established that the text of the New Testament has been transmitted faithfully for over 1900 years. Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, the basis of our modern critical editions, is very close to the originals.

Sheldon's picture
"The existence of an

"The existence of an historical Jesus does not mean that Christianity is true or that god exists,"

Which is why I don't care whether Jesus existed or not, as it is an irrelevance. Though the evidence is far from compelling, it has no bearing on my atheism.

Militant_Atheist's picture
It's no more compelling than

It's no more compelling than the evidence we have for many other historical figures whose historicity is taken for granted.

But you're right, there's no such thing as a "magical Jesus," so it doesn't change the fact god doesn't exist.

Sheldon's picture
Militant_Atheist "who as to

Militant_Atheist "who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power[b]

Work on your reading comprehension skills.

That's a claim, as evidence it is far from compelling. Though again I am struggling to care. Since Christianity insists this is the single most important life that ever has or will exist, I'd require far more compelling evidence to support its existence than this kind of archaic rhetorical biblical claim, especially given that there is zero evidence that Paul ever even met Jesus, making the claim even more suspect.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.