As an atheist, do you still “acknowledge” Jesus Christ?

Regardless of if you believe all the stories and tales about Jesus Christ, as an atheist, would you still come to terms with the fact he was a REAL Man that lived and existed on Planet Earth like you and me do right now? Or would you argue there is not enough grounds or sufficient evidence to make a claim about Jesus’ whereabouts or if he even appeared on our Planet? I’m welcome to believing he could have been a 100% legitimate human being, but do you have any History FACTS that could support he existed on this planet?

 

Yep, I actually think(dont know for sure yet).........that he might have excisted, based on other known written history(outside the bible). Same goes for some other religious history(bible,archeology,other written history, ect)



Still dont think he was the son of god or god.........or that there is any god.

Mzzls

 

No.
(A) I know of no empirical evidence that proves Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. I am not saying he didn't exist, just that I'm unaware of any evidence one way or the other. Like King Arthur in the Arthurian legends, he might be the embellished and idealized image of a historical person, or a composite of several people who represent those ideals, or a literary fiction; an avatar representing an ideal.
(B) The term "Christ" is an honorific; from the Greek chrīstos; the anointed one, a translation of Hebrew māshīaḥ; Messiah. As I don't ascribe to Abrahamaic mythology, I cannot in good conscience refer to Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ.

 

as a believer in the unknown being unknown, i acknowledge the possibility of all things.

this includes a spirit-virse billions of times wider, more divers, then one human being chosen by one god to be channeled by.
not narrower, but wider.

it is what christianity became in 428 ad, that
denies the goodness of the diversity of the possible,
the unknown being unknown,
and that goodness and the desire to be feared, being absolute binary opposites.

that there could be at least one god (nothing to stop there from being billions)
and that that good my have chosen to be channeled by at least on human

are the two things christianity had right,

before it threw that christ under the buss by canonizing saul of tarsus.

it's dam near everything else it got wrong.
and its not whatever god or gods there are
that are to blame for its doing so.

they just owe nothing to what humans tell each other to pretend about what is not known.

 

It depends on what you mean by "evidence" and "fables". Bart Ehrman (agnostic) has done a pretty decent job of making an evidentiary case for the existence of Jesus. (Did Jesus Exist?). I don't find all of it convincing, but it's enough to convince a reasonable person that it's likely Jesus was real person who was crucified by the Romans. Most scholars who have studied the subject seem to be so convinced. We're not talking about beyond a reasonable doubt, or even a preponderance of the evidence, but more like what lawyers call substantial evidence: enough to convince a reasonable person, even though other reasonable persons might not be convinced. But it's a judgment call.

For example, one thing that I think weighs in favor of His existence is that those "fables" about Him all say he was the Messiah and was crucified. The notion of a crucified messiah was completely contrary to all prevailing notions of what a Messiah was supposed to be and do. They were expecting either a military leader who would save them from the Romans and restore the Davidic kingdom; or a priestly figure; or both. And Saint Paul said he was initially put off by the passage in Deuteronomy 21:22-23 that a man hanged from a tree is cursed. Why, I ask myself, would --given the opportunity to make up any imaginary savior they wanted--would the Christians make up a crucified criminal , unpalatable both to pagans and Jews? It would be a hard sell, and the efforts of the gospel writers in finding support for a suffering messiah took ingenuity.

There is also a passage in Paul's letter to the Galatians where he reports of a meeting with "James the brother of the Lord". He uses the word adelphos, which can mean actual sibling or (for Catholics) kinsman. But in context, it's clear that Paul is using it as a means of identifying James to a Christian audience, as opposed to other Christians he visited. It would be odd to call James "the brother of the Lord" in contrast to Peter, whom he also visited in Jerusalem. Some atheist apologists have gone so far as to suggest a secret "brotherhood of the Lord", to which James belonged but apparently not Peter. I find that implausible. The notion that James was Jesus' brother is strengthened by a passage in Josephus' Antiquities ,Book 20, chp. 9, which most scholars think is authentic. It mentions "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James". Ordinarily, if one's brother exists, it's good evidence that one exists as well.

So far we've been dealing with the existence of a man Yeshua ha-Nozri. None of this goes toward the more important questions for believers: was He the Son of God, who performed miracles, was born of a virgin, raised from the dead, etc. I tend to be a skeptic on such matters, following Hume's dictum that extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nothing extraordinary though about a first century religious leader in Galilee who was thought to be the Messiah and was crucified by the Romans. There were other messianic claimants around he same time, some of whom were also executed. As a Christian, I go by the teachings and example attributed to Jesus: love of God and neighbor, including society's rejects. I think those truths are self-evident, regardless of where they came from.

 

There have been so-called 'faith' healers ever since homo sapiens first learned to walk up-right. If there was such a 'faith' healer, he was perhaps one of dozens, and as for being the 'son of god' - BULLSHIT !!!

 

It depends on what he's saying. Even Trump tells the truth occasionally. Saul was certainly an enigmatic character, but on the points I raised, I think it's likely he was telling the truth. He was talking to an audience of Christian converts and was trying to impress them that he didn't depend on contact with the apostles for his faith. So he mentions brief visits with James and Peter years after his conversion-- two "pillars" of the Church. James had sent "minders" from Jerusalem to check out reports of his heretical teachings and Peter caved into those men, to Saul's dismay. Imaginary friends are not unheard of , but imaginary rivals are less common. Whether or not Saul actually did visit Peter and James in Jerusalem is irrelevant. It's pretty clear that they existed, and he called one of the "the brother of the Lord." But nothing is certain, not even that. A determined skeptic is free to reject anything he puts his mind to.

 

"Son of God' was originally used by the Jews as an honorific title given to people like David and other kings who supposedly had the favor of God. It seems that many Christians in the Jerusalem church thought that Jesus was the adopted Son of God, at his baptism. These were the supposed heretical sects of Nasoreans and Ebionites, who were treated by Christian herisiologists as breakways from the main church but actually may have been the dominant view of early Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. At least that's what Bart Ehrman argues in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, p. 48, Christian apologists to the contrary. This would probably include James, head of the Jerusalem church and reported brother of Jesus, who may have seen how Jesus kept his room.

The process by which Jesus became Son of God in the pagan supernatural sense is discussed at length in Ehrman's How Jesus Became God. The view that Jesus was a primordial supernatural being is most evident in Paul's letter to the Philippians 2:6-11., written c. 62 C,E. Iin a Roman prison. It proclaims that Jesus "being in very nature God,did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant,being made in human likeness." The passage quoted is an excerpt from the Philippians hymn, and scholars debate whether Paul wrote it himself or is reciting a hymn familiar to him from some congregation he belonged to. Those who take the latter view point to its eloquence, and the fact that although it speaks of His death and exaltation, it fails to mention his resurrection--a central Pauline doctrine.This idea of a primordial, divine Jesus becomes full blown in the Gospel of John, which is generally thought to be the last of the gospels, dating some ninety years or more after Jesus' death.. Some scholars think that both Paul and John were influenced by merkabah (chariot) mysticsm, influenced by mystical visions. Scholem links merkabah to the development of Christian Gnosticism.(Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and the Talmudic Tradition.) Unlike the Gnostics, though, who thought Jesus came to enlighten us, Paul taught that jesus came to save us from our sins by his sacrifice and our faith in it. Bishop Spong argues (The Fourth Gospel:Tales of a Jewish Mystic) that that gospel should be interpreted as metaphor. All thins is speculative, but a reasonable take on the available evidence.

 

I wonder what athiest people use for 12 step.

 

here's a couple of possibilities. An Atheist's 12 Steps To Sobriety
There are also non-twelve step secular programs like Rational Recovery. Amazon.com : rational recovery

 

I believe he existed, isn't he in any records the Romans kept? Still as an agnostic I don't believe he was the son of God, in fact I doubt there is a God.

Still I'd hate to think that he also didn't believe he was the son of God. That would make him the greatest con man of all time. I think he believed it and got others to believe it. Of course this would mean the Resurrection was a hoax, as well as him healing the sick and walking on water. There are a lot of unanswered questions.

 

Did they have brothers named James? Did they have followers who thought they were saviors? Did they exist, or did somebody make them up?

 

Why would that make Him a con man . Paul or the gospel writers maybe? Did refer to Himself as the Son of God? John 10:22-42 says yes. But as I've said , that was a late gospel from a mystical tradition. Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man. That was a phrase of special significance in the apocalyptic literature at the time, specifically the Book of Daniel. 7:12-14 who is to be given glory, and a klingdom. Jesus might have thought of Himself as that figure. Messianism was common in first century Palestine, when Jews were expecting deliverance from the Romans. I don't think that any of these folks were con men. They may have sincerely believed this.

The resurrection of Jesus was first written about by Paul, and his description of it is interesting. The idea of resurrection for everybody on the Great Day became common among the Pharisees and Essenes (not the Sadducees who controlled the Temple priesthood) in the second century BCE when Jews were martyred by the Seleucids. Paul was excited because he had heard of Jesus' appearances to the apostles and finally to him (in a vision). Bishop Spong remarks:that Paul "never describes the resurrection of Jesus as a physical body resuscitated after death. There is no hint in the Pauline corpus that one, who had died, later walked out of his grave clothes, emerged from the tomb and was seen by his disciples." "Bishop John Shelby Spong On: The Resurrection" — Wisdom2Be. I tend to be skeptical of miraculous claims, in the belief that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The healing miracles seem possible to me since many faith healings depend on psychological suggestion. We know that people who suffer from hysteric or psychomatic illnesses can be healed by psychologiical methods is well-established in the literature..
CURE FOR HYSTERIA: AN INGENIOUS DISCOVERY BY SIGMUND FREUD
How to Cure a Psychosomatic Disorder – Liza Achilles
.

 

Basically I'm saying that if Jesus let people believe he was the son of God while not believing it himself then that would make him the greatest con man of all time, dwarfing even Donald Trump (sorry, I couldn't resist taking the shot).

 

I doubt that He did that. I think the son of God stuff was developed after his death, and took the opposing forms of adoptionism (Jesus as God's adopted son) and primordial supernatural existence (found in the Phillipians hymn and the Gospel of John.The latter won out and became the official view of the Church.

 

We'll never know. Christianity is faith-based, and those of us who need tangible proof will always doubt it.

 

Jesus might have been a real historical figure, or not, but I sure as hell don't believe that he possessed any of those reality-bending superpowers that the bible claims he held. Nothing like those powers have been demonstrated here in the real world ever since, making the whole thing seem like a fabrication by a bunch of superstitious sheep herders in a time when nobody knew anything about science. If Jesus existed, he was probably some cult figure/leader, and a liberal dissident of his era, who rubbed the period conservatives the wrong way and got removed for his troubles trough a plot to get the Romans involved. His followers then made some shit up to spread their faith and to show everybody how awesome their boy was. Bam, instant cult right there.

 

Proof is a strong word. In the law there are several levels of it: "beyond a reasonabe doubt"(criminal cases), preponderance of evidence or "more likely than not" (civil case), "substantial evidence" (enough to convince a reasonable person, even though other reasonable persons,might not be so convinced, probable cause (enpogh to arrest and prosecute), reasonable suspicion (enough to stop for investigation). I try to aim for substantial evidence, where available, but sometimes settle for less or simply fly by the seat of my pants. And the evidence I rely on is not always the sort that would pass muster in scientific peer review: "tangible" empirical evidence yes, when available, but when not, I tend to go by judgment based on personal experience, trusted information sources, and intuition. I notice in all your posts you include that "Have You Noticed" blurb about Republicans. I've noticed it, but admit I could never "prove it', and recognize that there are lots of intelligent people, like most of my buddies, who haven't noticed. To suspend judgment on the matter until proof is in would, in my opinion, be irresponsible, since I think MAGA Retrumplicanism poses and existential threat to American democracy. But all I can do is vote and argue on the basis of my own judgment.

I find that "tangible proof" is often unavailable for many of the big decisions in my life: job, marriage, investments, who to vote for, etc. I look at the available evidence, which is often ambiguous and conflicting, rely on intuition honed from past experience, and take the plunge on the basis of the evidence available. In life, a non-decision can be a big decision. I see a difference between doing science and doing life. Science is designed to protect against Type One errors (false positives; the risk of accepting something false). But it isn't helpful in dealing with Type Two errors (false negatives ; the risk of not believing something that's true.) There are important areas of life involving human meaning and value in which science is of limited help. I became a Christian as result of a "moment of clarity", religious experience, psychotic break, whatever, A passage from scripture popped into my head and triggered a cascade of thoughts that gave me a new and improved outlook on life. could have brushed it off or consulted a psychiatrist, but I decided to go with it and have been satisfied with the results.

I might add that my brand of Christianity is the "Progressive" exemplified by the writings of Paul Tillich, Marcus Borg, Bishop John Spong, and pastor Adam Hamilton--rather than the fundamentalist/evangelical variety. It's more about values than the particulars.of Nicene doctrine: peace, love, understanding and social justice. "For what does the Lord require of us but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God." Jesus (real or mythical) is said to have given his disciples one parting commandment: John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." Did He (if He existed) really say that? Who knows. As I've said, John was a late gospel and Bishop Spong thinks we should take it metaphorically. Whatever. They're the values I've chosen to live by.

One of my fellowship groups is a freethinkers group of atheists and agnostics. I've gotten to know them well, and know that they are decent people who share the values I've been talking about. I certainly don't think I'm at all superior or holier than they are. Justin Martyr, one of the great defenders of Christianity in the second century, told us that "those who live according to reason are Christians even though they are accounted atheists." It's the values that count!