So the concensus of the atheists here is what? Yeshhua bar Yosef was most likely a man who existed in those times, common enough name. No evidence exists that he preformed miracles outside the Bible which is rejected. He was most likely a teacher or rabbi and died for his teachings. No where outside the Bible references his teachings therefore whatever he taugh or did is rejected. The idea of the man God was probably formed @ 250AD when Rome picked up the religion based off this lone crucified rabbi. Some documents were probably added or edited to justify the man god abilities of this teacher.

Is that about it?

(May 19, 2010 at 4:19 am)tackattack Wrote: So the concensus of the atheists here is what? Yeshhua bar Yosef was most likely a man who existed in those times, common enough name. No evidence exists that he preformed miracles outside the Bible which is rejected. He was most likely a teacher or rabbi and died for his teachings. No where outside the Bible references his teachings therefore whatever he taugh or did is rejected. The idea of the man God was probably formed @ 250AD when Rome picked up the religion based off this lone crucified rabbi. Some documents were probably added or edited to justify the man god abilities of this teacher.

Is that about it?

No Tacky...

Yeshua ben Joseph never existed...neither did Mary or her lover Joseph of Arimathea. Their myths were constructed by evil geniuses to gain political power over the rebellious mob which later became a fashionable structure by the time of Constantine I and the Council of Nicaea around 325CE...later it was adopted as the singular most effective weapon to control and acquire property and people ...

Quite frankly the last 2000 years will be seen by history as "The Dark Ages" of humanity.

is that the concensus of the atheists in this thread?

(May 19, 2010 at 5:00 am)tackattack Wrote: is that the consensus of the atheists in this thread?

No.

It's possible,even likely a man called something like Yeshua/Yoshua bar Yosef existed during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius Caesar. That covers 23 BCE to 37 CE. Jesus was allegedly born between 4 BCE and began his ministry at age 30,and was executed at age 33..

It's possible,even likely there was a wondering teacher with a goodly number of followers of that name.This was a rabbinical tradition which is still extant amongst Hasidic Jews.,

However,there is little doubt in my mind that the Jesus of the New Testament is pure myth.

I have no interest in arguing the point or answering questions on my position. I have merely given my own broad opinion in answering the question,which is really only of academic interest to me. The historical existence of Jesus is irrelevant to my lack of belief.

Everything that has been said for the most part covers what I would have said regarding this issue myself and I have made my position on this matter very clear. The N.T. Jesus is not an historical figure he is just one of many god men who were invented before him. In fact a little study in comparative religions would reveal that the Jesus tale is nothing more than a conglomeration of previously plagiarized myths. The way I see it the bible says Jesus was always thronged by followers, and it was so much so that it raised the attention of the Pharisees and even the Roman authorities. If we take into consideration the miracles attributed to this Jesus then I think that too would have attracted the attention of some secular historians that would probably have written a hell of alot more than one or a couple of paragraphs on the man in passing. And finally the icing on the cake for me is that so called ascending to heaven piece which leaves us all ass out of evidence, this is a common scenario that has been played out many times in other more primitive myths.

(May 19, 2010 at 5:00 am)tackattack Wrote: is that the concensus of the atheists in this thread?

There is no consensus.

(May 19, 2010 at 11:11 am)Minimalist Wrote:

(May 19, 2010 at 5:00 am)tackattack Wrote: is that the concensus of the atheists in this thread?

There is no consensus.

Due to lack of evidence.

Yes.

Credible evidence.

For most of my life I assumed that Jesus was a real person. After all, he is referred to in the media as if he was real. Not once did I ever see anything that questioned the actual existence of Jesus. Not until a decade or so ago, when I began to check out atheist web sites, was I exposed to the truth that there is no evidence to indicate Jesus really existed. As I began to explore the issue I was surprised to discover that there is absolutely nothing to support a historical Jesus. Not one mention of him in any historical documents or records. No mention of him from contemporary historians. No physical evidence of him at all (unless you include the discredited Shroud of Turin). This realization only served to push me further toward atheism. Of course, most Christians will insist that their Jesus was an actual person. I'd love to find some way to absolutely prove that Jesus is a myth. It would be fun to watch an entire religion come crashing down.

You can't say that Jesus, Mary, or Joseph never existed. While the supernatural Jesus is ficititious, a historical man who lived during that period and kickstarted the christian religion in one form or another isn't all that far fetched. The most realistic answer is that the early church turned Jesus into a demigod to give credibility to a still very young religion. It's pointless to attempt to further dismantle an already implausible belief system by removing the few truths within it. They believe god impregnated a virgin, gave birth to a son, who was actually himself, then grew into a man who healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water, was crucified, then resurrected, where he ascended to heaven and became himself again. It needs no further loss of credibility than that really.