Happy Atheist Forum

At school, there are some people that I talk religion with.
I normally don't get real into Christianity, but I tell them how it's bullshit through fear (I can do that well).
And normally, I randomly hear this from them: "You know, Jesus was a real person".

My normal reactions is. ".... And? Doesn't mean he was the son of God.."
Then I'll tell how I think he either didn't exist or was schizophrenic.

Now I am just wondering.. Why do Christians seem to think that is justification for him being the Son of God and think it will stump me? ALSO, DID he exist, and if so, what's the evidence?

Most likely there was a man at that time named Jesus. However, I think most of the claims about him in the gospel are not at all accurate.

I would respond: "You know... Muhammad was a real person too."

His actual name was yeshua (joshua)

I asked this same question when I was a younger man, and have since done some research.

After a great deal of study, I'm satisfied that there's no credible extra-Biblical evidence for the man upon which the myth of Jesus Christ is based. Most if not all extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus can easily be tracked back to emerging Christian influence in the region. Though Christianity didn't become mainstream until much later, the influence can be seen as early as 50 AD. Other information has been debunked as fake, written hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly died.

I'm afraid we will never know if there ever was a Yeshua bin Yoseph (Jesus, son of Joseph), but anyone claiming positively that Jesus lived hasn't done the research. And the unfortunate truth is that there is a TON of misinformation out there. Some of the most brilliant, rational atheists believe that there absolutely was a Jesus.

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3528737/The_God_Who_Wasnt_There.mp4

Oops! Sorry, I mean purchase The God Who Wasn't There (http://www.amazon.com/God-Who-Wasnt-There/dp/B000CAPZBC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1229750553&sr=8-1).

 

Quote from: "Sophus"Most likely there was a man at that time named Jesus. However, I think most of the claims about him in the gospel are not at all accurate.

Based on my (casual) research into Jesus, I agree.  From what I can gather there was likely someone named Jesus and there were likely many self proclaimed messiahs walking around during that time period.  Other than that, there is no proof that the Jesus of the Bible actually existed.  Nothing was written about Jesus during his claimed lifetime.  The first writings are from 50ad.  If we assumed Jesus was born in 4ad (which I think is the currently assumed date), and he died at 33 (right?).  That means no one wrote about him till at least 13 years after his death.  Anyone who is not stupid isn't going to claim that it took them 13 years to learn how to read and write because people already knew how to read and write.  Not a single, journalist or scholar of the time thought to mention that some guy was really pissing off Rome by performing miracles and claiming to be king of the Jews.  Wouldn't that have been something any historian would want to make note of?!

Check this out; An Examination of the "Evidence for Jesus":
http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=3275 (http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=3275)

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Oops! Sorry, I mean purchase The God Who Wasn't There (http://www.amazon.com/God-Who-Wasnt-There/dp/B000CAPZBC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1229750553&sr=8-1).
 

Not a bad film, but it's not gonna convert anyone.
I liked the information presented, but the main guy seems a bit, uh... angry.
His biased opinion lowers the quality of the film for me.

But, I agree with many of you.
Jesus probably didn't exist, and even if he did, there's almost no non-biblical evidence of anything miraculous.

Now Marduk on the other hand...,
JoeActor

OK, so you guys are basically saying that there really is no evidence outside of the Bible to prove Jesus's existence?
And I should say that next time I hear someone say that?
Or like Sophus said: "You know, Muhammad was a real person too.."

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3528737/The_God_Who_Wasnt_There.mp4

Oops! Sorry, I mean purchase The God Who Wasn't There (http://www.amazon.com/God-Who-Wasnt-There/dp/B000CAPZBC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1229750553&sr=8-1).

 :cool:

Quote from: "Kevin"At school, there are some people that I talk religion with.
I normally don't get real into Christianity, but I tell them how it's bullshit through fear (I can do that well).
And normally, I randomly hear this from them: "You know, Jesus was a real person".

My normal reactions is. ".... And? Doesn't mean he was the son of God.."
Then I'll tell how I think he either didn't exist or was schizophrenic.

Now I am just wondering.. Why do Christians seem to think that is justification for him being the Son of God and think it will stump me? ALSO, DID he exist, and if so, what's the evidence?

To answer your question...

These believers think (probably subconsciously) that that bit of information proves biblical inerrancy. They assume this to be valid:

Quote from: "They"
The bible says Jesus existed and that he was the Son of God (and died on the cross, rose from the dead...)
Jesus truly existed.
∴ Jesus was the Son of God (and died on the cross, rose from the dead...)

And this is, of course, an invalid argument.

Either the above is true or the believer is even more ignorant and has merely been told that Jesus' existence as a real person in history is an invincible truth that can be thrown at atheists in order to debunk any argument they may have.