Is Jesus the son of God?

[Whateverist]

Someone just mentioned how cool it was to be able to vote on such a measure here on an atheist site so I thought, why not? (Wish I could find it now to give proper credit.)

So in this poll we're answering the question "was Jesus the son of God, or what?" Gawd only knows what options are needed. I'll write some down but as always, write your own if I leave your idea out.

1) Yes. There was a man born of a flesh and blood woman named Mary who was impregnated by God himself. That makes him the son of God, by gawd.

2) No. Jesus was or was probably a real, historical person from the time period depicted in the bible but he was not the spawn of God.

3) No. The Jesus of the bible was not or was probably not a historical person. More the stuff of legend and myth or possibly just fiction.

4) Oh hell no. It's all bullshit. No gods. No offspring of gods. No woo woo shit at all.

5) Don't know. Without an adequate definition of "god" it is impossible to know who may be the son of one, or if a 'god' is even capable of having a child.

6) Don't care. Not really sure what I'm doing on the Christian sub forum, but as long as I'm here I'd just like to register my extreme disinterest.

7) None of the above but I'll be letting you know in a comment.

8) None of the above and I can't be bothered to comment.

[Foxaèr]

3.........

[The Valkyrie]

In my opinion, no.

If he did exist, and there is growing speculation that the Jesus character is an amalgam of people who did actually exist given the supernatural aspects of earlier deities, he was likely an itinerant rabbi who tried to shake up the status quo among the powers-that=be and was killed because of it. And, after his death, his followers then associated him with divinity.

[FatAndFaithless]

7.

Jesus is the mechanic that works on my crappy Toyota two blocks down the street.

[Natachan]

A combination of 2 & 3. There were messianic preachers, there were several cults of this type, and it is possible that one of these or some combination of a couple formed the basis for modern Christianity.

And since his divinity was established 300 years later by a vote no, not divine.

[Cato]

I don't recall naming a kid Jesus, so no.

[robvalue]

4, it's all as close to bullshit as makes no odds.

[Whateverist]

Damn. Forgot to make the results public. I'm nosy like that.

Oh and I voted 5 but I could have also voted 6, and because I care so little I have no opinion which is more likely between 2 and 3. The fact that the term is so meaningless seems primary to me.

[Tonus]

1 seems most like the gospel version if taken literally.

[Jackalope]

7 with a splash of 2 and 3.

There may have been a man that was the basis of the mythology, his name may or may not have been Jesus, but there's zero, zilch, nada, bupkis reason to think he's a miracle working spawn of deity.

But really, all of that is moot, because I have no fucks to give. Yahweh's portrayal in the bible is evil, the Christian doctrine of redemption is evil, and I want no part of any of it - even if it could be proved to be true.

So neener neener.