A passage from The God Delusion.

[PickelledEggs]

I think he really did exist, like how Shoko Ashara, Joseph Smith and Marshall Herff Applewhite did, and he had followers write about his godly powers.

Can you cite that? I'd like to look in to that a bit more...

[Munch]

Can you cite that? I'd like to look in to that a bit more...

Well like say I've not read dawkins book yet so will get to that. I'm more just theorizing, but wouldn't it be funny if you could discover that everything christianity is based on isn't from a divine scripture, but from a cult leader who wasn't even a pearly white diva. It feels like every time a creationist says to a scientist 'you can't prove the universe is more then 6000 years old cause you weren't there!', makes you feel like saying you can't prove jesus was what the bible says he is.
Of course I know the irony would be lost on such people.

[PickelledEggs]

Well like say I've not read dawkins book yet so will get to that. I'm more just theorizing, but wouldn't it be funny if you could discover that everything christianity is based on isn't from a divine scripture, but from a cult leader who wasn't even a pearly white diva. It feels like every time a creationist says to a scientist 'you can't prove the universe is more then 6000 years old cause you weren't there!', makes you feel like saying you can't prove jesus was what the bible says he is.
Of course I know the irony would be lost on such people.

It's very likely that Christianity spawned from a cult leader, but I would say it was probably a cult leader like Joseph Smith that talked about Jesus.... while tying his claims to already existing scripture. But I still say that claiming Jesus was a real life person is as much speculation as anything if there isn't any evidence for it.

Even what I said about Christianity is borderline speculation because I have no evidence of it; it's less of a claim and more of just saying that I have a hunch about it though based off of what we know about more contemporary cult leaders like Joseph Smith and L.Ron Hubbard.

[Munch]

Thats the wonderful thing about an analytical approach to things, wanting to find truth in something and questioning everything. Thats how I became an athiest to begin with ^^

Your right, it could just have well been a random guy who did a Joseph smith too, we could even put bets on what it was most likely, a man who wanted to become divine in the eyes of others, someone who wanted to make a cult so invented the character, maybe even a system of government who wanted to create there own laws, so put together there own myth to overthrow pre-existing ones like greek or roman.

[PickelledEggs]

Thats the wonderful thing about an analytical approach to things, wanting to find truth in something and questioning everything. Thats how I became an athiest to begin with ^^

lol That's the truth!

[Solitary]

I don't think Dawkins is going out on a limb when there is absolutely no evidence He existed during His time.  Solitary

[the_antithesis]

If a historical jesus existed, he was probably the Osama Bin Laden of his day.

[Munch]

If a historical jesus existed, he was probably the Osama Bin Laden of his day.

XD

[LoriPinkAngel]

Thats the wonderful thing about an analytical approach to things, wanting to find truth in something and questioning everything. Thats how I became an athiest to begin with ^^

Your right, it could just have well been a random guy who did a Joseph smith too, we could even put bets on what it was most likely, a man who wanted to become divine in the eyes of others, someone who wanted to make a cult so invented the character, maybe even a system of government who wanted to create there own laws, so put together there own myth to overthrow pre-existing ones like greek or roman.

Or maybe he was like the character in Monty Python's Life of Bryan who developed a following quite by accident.

[Shiranu]

Meh, I don't see any reason to believe that there wasn't a Jesus figure at the time; Israel was supposedly full of radicals who were fueled by the Roman occupation and other sorts of political and religious dissidents. He was probably one of the many nut-jobs running around  who managed to make it to cult, and then religion, status... or perhaps a combination of several of their stories.

Think about how many people today claim to be Jesus reincarnate... you really think 2000 years ago there weren't people who would claim to be God's son and people wouldn't fall for it?

[Minimalist]

I keep asking for the "evidence" that fucking jesus existed.  You know, the "evidence" that all these alleged "scholars" claim points to the aforementioned existence.

Somehow, it all comes back to the gospels which we know are a load of shit.


I'm still waiting.

[SGOS]

Meh, I don't see any reason to believe that there wasn't a Jesus figure at the time; Israel was supposedly full of radicals who were fueled by the Roman occupation and other sorts of political and religious dissidents. He was probably one of the many nut-jobs running around  who managed to make it to cult, and then religion, status... or perhaps a combination of several of their stories.

Think about how many people today claim to be Jesus reincarnate... you really think 2000 years ago there weren't people who would claim to be God's son and people wouldn't fall for it?

No, there is no reason to not believe a Jesus figure existed.  But as in all matters where evidence does not exist, the rational default position is not to assume anything.  The only thing that counts is evidence.  Anything else is irrelevant.  From human observation we know that nut jobs make wild religious claims all the time, and these nut jobs are ignored by most everyone, even by Baptists and Jehovah's Witnesses.  It's likely that such nut jobs have existed since man evolved, but that isn't evidence of  existence.

A Jesus figure may or may not have existed.  And even that admission is entirely irrelevant.  The only  reason that the question even exists is because the current mythology known as Christianity is so wide spread.  In fact, the only thing that drives the question (among dimwits and religious scholars alike), comes down to the fallacy of the argument from numbers.  There is nothing here to see.  I will admit that the size of the following of believers is impressive.  There is no question about that, but the size and commitment of the following is not evidence for existence, any more than that same phenomenon was one time evidence for Zuess.

[Youssuf Ramadan]

Is it possible that the whole Jesus character was a composite of the best bits of the many Apocalyptic 'messiahs' and preachers that were supposedly around at the time?  Strange that there is very little between the beginning of his life and the end, and that even the synoptic gospels have glaring discrepancies while being held by a lot of Xtians to be first-hand accounts.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One of those guys is going to have a tough time at the boarding gate.

[SGOS]

Is it possible that the whole Jesus character was a composite of the best bits of the many Apocalyptic 'messiahs' and preachers that were supposedly around at the time?  Strange that there is very little between the beginning of his life and the end, and that even the synoptic gospels have glaring discrepancies while being held by a lot of Xtians to be first-hand accounts.

The missing parts of his life bothered me even as a little kid.  How could chroniclers leave that out?  It's not like he didn't become important and not worth following until he was an adult.  From the moment of his birth, the Bible makes it clear that Baby Jesus was destined for greatness.  Men of distinction came from great distances bearing gifts.  They followed miracles in the night sky to find him.

What happens after that?  Historians said, "Oh fuck it, I've got more important things to do than follow some pimple faced adolescent around for 20 years, even if he is the savior of mankind!"  ???