Submit a question to our community and get an answer from real people.
Submit

How can atheist compare Jesus Christ to other God's ?

A number of non-Christian historians and writers who lived around :the time wrote about Jesus:Thallus Tactitus Mara Bar Serapion Galerius Phlegon Suetonius The Jewish Talmud Josephus Galen Lucian Pliny the Younger Celsus Numenius.

Even if we didn’t have the Bible at all, from these secular sources we would have a basic outline which matches the Bible:Tiberius,It's recorded that many people saw Him perform miracles and believed that He was the Messiah, that He was put to death and dispite this people claimed to see Him afterwards alive and worshipped Him as God.




Report as
helixaqua

I'm not...Jesus was a human, deities don't exist. Just because someone "says" he performed miracles doesn't mean its true. Magicians always pull illusions (miracles)but we are intelligent enough now to know that magic doesn't exist either. I'M SURE writers of the bible exaggerated like all MYTHOLOGY!

Helpful (11) Fun (2) Thanks for voting Comments (32)
Report as
Great answer. Are you ready for an earful?
Report as
helixaqua
Can't...doesn't exist.
Report as
yes it does
Report as
helixaqua
Always ready! >:) Sorry but I don't believe in childrens fairy tales.
Report as
They are not childrens fairytails
Report as
helixaqua
That's fine if you believe...I respect your decision. Everyone thinks differently and has different beliefs.
Report as
OOooooo Helix!! You're gonna get yelled at, hahahaha!! XD

And I am outta this one....... 8)
Report as
I have studied the Paranormal for over 20 yrs.now check out my real photo's it might change your mind. http://youtu.be/WI-u3wWe0WE
Report as
but these beliefs are true
Report as
helixaqua
In your prospective..what about other religious beliefs. That's insulting to them.
Report as
They arnt true
Report as
helixaqua
Rude...just rude
Report as
should i say they are true?
Report as
helixaqua
No....absolutely not! Could have said it differently out of respect for other beliefs. I don't believe it to be true either, but it makes them feel good believing in what they do. Can't take that away from them.
Report as
Phlorence_602
Good morning!
And it's too early to be arguing O.o
Morning helix!
Morning hipp!
Report as
Religion is based on location, if you were born and raised in Tehran you'd more than likely be Sunni or Shia Muslim so you can't say other religions are wrong.
Report as
helixaqua
That's not up to you...I'm sure they are saying the same about you. As long as someone is happy!
Report as
but they are wrong
Report as
helixaqua
Morning Phlorence!!! It's the extra coffee!!! @.@
Report as
ugh goodnight
Report as
Hi Phlo, I'm not jumping into this one either.
Report as
im sleepy
Report as
Phlorence_602
Haha, I'm trying to stay away from religious questions too <><>
How are we doing?:)
Report as
Me either
Maybe later though
Report as
i am going to sleeeep
Report as
So far so good Phlorence.
Report as
and phlorence watermelon cat says you made him have that watermelon hat
Report as
Phlorence_602
Sheldon, are you referring to me?
Rapunzle: yes I know.
Hippy: yeah, same here :| it's a serene Saturday for me too :-)
Report as
helixaqua
Nobody is arguing....she seems fine, just sleepy! She seems to be one of the nice ones.
Report as
No p
Hippy
Report as
dustee
Good morning....Helix...
Report as
wickedpissah
Speaking of Jesus performing miracles, you've got to see this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN-8G0HCD5U
Report as
Add a comment...

Jesus is God

Helpful (3) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
Godisone
Amen...and I love your answer.
Report as
dustee
why do you say this... where did you get is answer
Report as
Jesus is dead. God is unprovable. Your statement has no basis in fact Repunzel. You've convinced no one, and ignored the question.
Report as
Add a comment...

Some people believe Jesus & God are the same "being."
An Atheist can't compare Jesus to God 'cause Atheists do not believe in God. Can't make comparisons regarding something you don't believe exists... :)

Helpful (5) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (10)
Report as
helixaqua
Morning! :)
Report as
Morning, Helix!! I read (& voted!) your answer... you're asking for trouble this morning, haha! XD
Report as
helixaqua
People need to learn criticism, its part of life :)
Report as
Phlorence_602
Morning ABU :)
Report as
Dude... no problem for me, I've just seen too many ridiculous religious arguments on here -- I prefer to stay out of it!
My view is a li'l something like this:
God(s) and/or religion(s) is/are great... for some people. If it makes you feel better, believe in it; believe in whatever you want... BUT don't try to "convert" everyone else to your belief system/faith... that's just plain annoying! >:|
Report as
Exactly ABU. The lack of respect for different beliefs just amazes me.
Report as
Fantastically stated allbangedup.
Report as
Some don't believe in hell
Rapunzle
Report as
Rapunzel, I doubt very much that you'd care for it if atheists constantly tried to deconvert you because we just want to help you out of your delusions.

But we actually respect other people's right to believe as they wish.
Report as
Thanks, hippy & cb8016!! :)
I don't like to get involved in these arguments... it's beyond pointless!
All I have to say is:
"Believe what you believe in & don't try to FORCE others to believe the same" -- that's it, that's all... 'nuff said... have a good morning... blah, blah, blah.... :)
Report as
Add a comment...

In the same way Christians compare other God's to Jesus Christ.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (0)
Report as
Add a comment...

Since atheists harbor no beliefs of any gods (the one consistent trait of being an atheist) it is absurd to suggest to an atheist that Jesus was one. You as a believer have no presentable evidence to prove otherwise.

Helpful (8) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
We have all the proof we need!
Report as
Funny how you never manage to present any.
Report as
Add a comment...

Those historians were decades to centuries later. That was not "at the time". Tacitus is a particularly poor example as he called the beliefs of early Christians nonsense.
And Josephus? Really? Even the early church knew the two passages regarding Jesus were fourth century insertions by the monk Eusebius. Not a single historian or scholar in or around Jerusalem at the time of the alleged events ever mentioned him- and there were dozens.

The claims regarding your god are no different than those of other religions in that you can't support them with evidence.

Helpful (10) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (9)
Report as
Jewish sources - Josephus, the Talmud. Josephus, a Jewish aristocrat turned politician, was recruited by the Romans during the first Jewish revolt to act as a mediator and write a historical record of events at the time. He records that Jesus was a wise man that did many wonderful works, and that many people - both Jews and Gentiles - followed after him. The Talmud, written by Jewish sources at the time, is (not surprisingly) unfriendly toward the founder of Christianity. The important point, however, is that Jewish sources do not deny that Jesus was a real historical figure -- they only promote a different interpretation of of his conception.

A Roman historian who lived through the reign of over a half-dozen Roman emperors1, Tacitus has been called "the greatest historian of ancient Rome. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals covers from 14 A.D. to approximately 68 A.D. (the death of Augustus up to the time of Nero), while Histories proceeds from 68 A.D. (Nero's death) to 96 A.D. (the time of Domitian).

Here is what Tacitus wrote concerning the history of Jesus, and the existence of Christians in Rome:

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the price could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated
Report as
Again, everyone knows the passages from Josephus are fraudulent insertions from the fourth century by the monk Eusebius.
In addition, Josephus didn't write until nearly sixty years after the alleged events, and wasn't even born until 8 years after.

Tacitus related what early Christians believed, and wrote seventy years later. And if you can actually read your own sad cut and paste job, he called it "pernicious superstition". Also, never mentions Jesus. Christus is a title not a name.


Funny how you guys have zilch from the actual time, eh? Did every historian in the area (and there were many) go on break for a couple generations?
Report as
Oh SNAP! Skeptikitten Wins this round x2!
Report as
Skep, you gotta get out more. You quote a minority position as if jt was the majority.
Actually, when taking my class on contemporary texts, we found the TF of Josephus to be contextually accurate in the main; if its a late addition, the writer was contemporaneous with Josephus, because texts from his tome contain it. And the text most Josephus scholars use includes it. See here: http://www.christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_josephus.html
Report as
Then your class didn't study very hard. The entire context of the first Josephus passage on Jesus is entirely Christian- it uses phrasing and terms not used in any of the other body of Josephus' work and not consistent with a Jew, which Josephus was. As Jews do not believe Jesus was the Christ or that he rose from the dead, it is absurdity to think a Jew would write passages to that effect.

There is also the issue of brevity. Josephus' work is exhaustive and voluminous. He spent pages discussing petty theives and seditious leaders. Forty pages were devoted to a single king. Yet we are expected to believe that he made these momentous claims of tremendous import but devoted only a few lines to them? Inconsistent.

It also interrupts the narrative, which is not seen in any of Josephus' actual work. First he speaks of a Jewish sedition put paid by Rome. Then there is a line saying "about the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews in disorder". Which logically follows right? Except that the Jesus passage is jammed incongruously between.

Further, the early Christian scholars never mentioned the passage. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen did not ever mention this wondrous passage- to expect that these exhaustive chroniclers of early Christianity ALL skipped over it is absurdity, and certainly indicates it did not exist in the second and third centuries. Origen actually states flat out Josephus didn't mention him.

The appearance of the passage historically coincided with the writings of ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, who openly advocated fraud and deception to further the goals of the church. He is also known to have perverted the text of Josephus in other places. The fact that Chrysostom and accet both refused to use it as they doubted its authenticity and were suspicious over its appearance only after Eusebius' writings is telling. Photius even says that Josephus made no mention of Jesus.

Yours is the minority opinion- even Christian scholars admit the passage is a forgery
Report as
I could actually keep going but that's damning enough and I ran out of characters.
Report as
You didn't read my link. And you didn't take my class.
Report as
Skep, I don't know what you call your formal schooling in biblical texts, but I do ask you at least not try to embarrass yourself by showing your ignorance and claiming you know something, when you don't. It's not your area of expertise, and you do not have a degree in it. Perhaps you think you are correct because your sources sound plausible; you appear to have read ONLY the atheists or theological liberals, and you don't realize they are a minority at all times in theology.

Whenever you claim they are the majority, I refer you back to Lexis-nexis -- and apparently you never check. A mere search would show the power of your citations. You continue in this error, and I continue to correct you. It's odd.
Secondly, please accord me at least this much respect: I spent a LOT of my money, and a not-inconsiderable amount of time, earning an advanced degree in the very area you claim a superior knowledge without having taken formal classes. It's hubris, and though I respect your science background, I just can't see anyone thinking you are an expert in biblical languages or ancient texts.
Report as
Deb001, excellent attempt. There is a lot of assist here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#section_4
Report as
Add a comment...
dustee

Jehovah GOD, has no equal and Jesus is his son... Psalms 83:18...

Helpful (6) Fun (1) Thanks for voting Comments (3)
Report as
helixaqua
Morning!! :)
Report as
Congrats, you completely ignored the question. Why is it you believers are so insistent on asserting points you can't prove, on questions that don't ask about them?
Report as
dustee
Z u so funny
Report as
Add a comment...

I heard this same thought from Bill O'Reilly and that's how he's approaching the writing of his upcoming book," Killing Jesus." I will anxiously await its publication, and see if he got it right.

Helpful Fun Thanks for voting Comments (17)
Report as
....Bill o'Reilly? Really? The man who claimed god must exist because no one knows why we have tides?
Report as
Say what you wish-- he's the #1 non-fiction author for 2 years running, selling over 9 million of Killing JFK and Killing Lincoln. I read them both and was very impressed: factual, with narrative drive, well researched, balanced and a good read.
I do try to keep up on pop culture but I am falling behind because I am old. Maybe you aren't as limited as me. Read one of them and see if your opinion is the same?
Report as
And Twilight was a blockbuster best seller- it was still wretched writing with a puerile "plot". Popularity, particularly in Anerica, certainly is no indicator of quality.

I have read several of O'Reilly's books. While his attempts at history aren't as poor as his discussions about religion or politics, it is still "pop" history, and distinctly told from a particular belief rather than a neutral scholarly tone.

Of course, I sometimes have difficult getting past some of the absurdities he has spewed in public to take him seriously.
Report as
wickedpissah
"The tide goes in, the tide goes out- you can't explain that!" - Bill O'Reilly
Report as
I wanted to stick a fork in my eye when I heard that, wicked. All I could think was "and someone gave this moron a TV show".
Report as
Lol I think I rolled my eyes when he said that too. But he researched his stuff in books, and on tv it's a bit fast and loose. Anyway, I enjoyed the books.
Report as
He may be a moron (with a bachelor's degree in history from Marist College, a master's in broadcast journalism from Boston University and another master's Degree in public administration from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government), but he's darn popular. If I got an hour a day, I wouldn't have one hundredth his audience. It doesn't make him right, but he has his pulse on America, at least part of it. Anyway, I will read the book so you don't have to, and will pen some thoughts on its worth.
Report as
wickedpissah
Yes, he has his boot firmly on the pulse of America.
Report as
Lol he don't wear no boots! He got Trojan football he got spinal cracker. Come together!
Report as
Unfortunately degrees don't mean a person is not in many ways a moron. A few of my colleagues can't figure out how to use the fax machine, and they have PhDs. My mother works with electrical engineers who can't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. Context is important.
Report as
wickedpissah
George W Bush graduated from both Harvard and Yale.
Case closed.
Report as
Lol and from Harvard: Ashley Judd and Elizabeth Shue Barack Obama and Yo-Yo Ma and Ben Bernanke and Tommy Lee Jones & Benazir Bhutto and Al Gore and Stockard Channing and John Lithgow and Elizabeth Dole and on and on. You find famous people everywhere on the list; some famous, others infamous. Lux et veretas.
Report as
Wait, light and truth is Yale... veretas is Harvard. Lol my memory
Report as
I don't mind a little argumentum ad hominem, but it's beneath true debate on issues.
Report as
wickedpissah
You're the one who brought Bill O'Reilly into the discussion.
I was simply cross-examining the witness.
Report as
That's actually funny! Good line!
Debate stopped for laughter break.
Report as
wickedpissah
And now who's using the ad hominem attack?
Okay, buddy.
Report as
Add a comment...

Because your god is equally imaginative and there is just as much evidence for your gods existence as there is for any other god. Zero evidence.

Helpful (5) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (2)
Report as
Come on,Mirtha who emerged from a rock,how about Dionysus the horned child,how many God's can forgive mankind for there sins ? hundreds of people witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth.
Report as
Godisone
I agree with Deb!!!
Report as
Add a comment...
wickedpissah

As an atheist I can compare your god to other gods in the same way that I can compare Darth Vader to Emperor Palpatine. The same way I can compare Ra to Mithra. The same way I can compare Sasquatch to Chewbacca. The same way I can compare Gilgamesh to Beowulf. The same way I can compare Noah to Utnapishtim. The same way I can compare Vlad Dracul to Lestat.
Your myths aren't real.
They're myths.
The study of mythology is fascinating.

Helpful (9) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (5)
Report as
Nicely worded answer... and... I just gotta say -- awesome username, I love it -- hahahaha!! XD
Report as
You use myth in a way that implies they are not true. A Myth is a meme that has meaning that transcends the facts. Think of myth as an analogy, where truth and meaning are riding as passengers in a story.
Lol or you can just jump up and say its bald fiction, which you seem to state. Then we can decide if its history as some believe or fiction as you believe. :D
Report as
wickedpissah
A myth is a means, not an end.
Myths are generally employed to teach a lesson.
But no matter how valuable, how necessary, how REAL the lesson is...
The myth itself remains nothing more than a useful fiction.
Report as
Like the myth of George Washington and the cherry tree? Or Lincoln not being a Christian? Or Jefferson fathering black slaves? Perhaps!
.
Some may be true, some false, and others debatable. The anecdote becomes a myth (as opposed to urban legend) when the meme has a life of its own, independent of truth, with truth (or fiction) riding along as a passenger. Some theologians debate truth; others agree with the mythic aspects in order to point to higher truths. As for me, I remind you what Jesus said: "Sanctify them in the truth; Thy Word is truth." Evidently, there is truth enough for Jesus to endorse it.
Report as
wickedpissah
The myth of Washington and the cherry tree is a myth, nothing more. It's a story invented by (not a Parson) Mason Weems to sell books, nothing more.
Jefferson did, in fact, father at least one, perhaps as many as six children by the slavegirl Hemmings. DNA evidence has proven that. That's not a myth, that's fact plain and simple.
But at least those men actually existed. Jeebus, on the other hand, takes mythology to the Meta- level.
Report as
Add a comment...

You have received several excellent answers as to why a man named Jesus can't be proven to have existed so I'll go at it from a logical stand point.
Christians claim Jesus is god, they worship him as the one true god and claim that Jesus was 1/3 of the trinity. The other two being God the ever present, all knowing, and timeless being that all Abrahamic faiths worship, and the Holy ghost the part that interacts directly with humans on Earth.
So, here is the logical dilemma that Jesus injects into this concept.
With the crucifixion god sent himself, via the holy ghost, to Earth to act as a sacrifice to himself (god) for sins that humans committed against god, and to change the rules that it (god) wanted humans to now follow. This raises several logical questions: Why would god think that sacrificing itself (Jesus) to itself (god) would be a sacrifice at all? If Jesus "suffered for our sins" but was in fact God did he really suffer? If god is all knowing why did it not set down these new rules (NT) in the beginning? You can't say he did but the Jews got it wrong because the OT clearly (well for a theist) states otherwise and includes completely different guidelines.

Helpful (6) Fun Thanks for voting Comments (8)
Report as
Excellent answer, Cal.
Report as
Thanks Z! Skeptikitten already had the answer I would have given from a historical prospective, so I thought I'd go the logic route.
Report as
Excellent questions! Gosh you are a perceptive critter, cal!
1. Most theologians accept the progressive nature of revelation; I also add the progressive nature of moral development (Kohlberg). This means that, just as children learn morals from concrete examples at 7 and more universal examples and application in their teens, humanity has developed morally. I told my children never to cross the street without me when They were young, but I let them cross now without me as they are adults. God had one standard for a fledgling nation of Semites, and another for a mature group of mixed races with many years of history and moral instruction in their background. Jews used to do animal sacrifices, but we stopped when the Temple was destroyed, and even if it were to he rebuilt, we likely would not start them back up, as (this is debatable) we have moved on from the blood of bulls and goats.
Report as
2. We are entitled to get it wrong, and still have part of it right. For example, I debated with my father over my choice of a wife. He was of one opinion, I of another. But once the decision was made, you would have thought it was his idea, so well did he love my spouse. Did I hate him for doubting and opposing me, or love him for changing his mind? Hmm
Report as
Those are nice observations Shiny but they do not address the questions I posed.
Your comments relate to the OT/NT question as if, like I said, the instruction was incorrectly interpreted. You taught your child how to cross the street, to look both ways, to judge the speed of traffic, and to watch the ground to ensure you don't trip. When they became teens you let them do it on their own, you didn't change your instructions and say "Ok! now that you're older forget what I told you, now I want you to look up and down and hop 5 times until you reach the other side."
I'll admit I don't quite understand the relation to the topic in your second comment, but it seemed wise non the less ;)
Report as
Lets assume for a moment that the Jewish god Yehweh (spelling?) is the correct god and its 1st and 2nd commandment were absolute law, no if's, and's, or but's. Lets then assume that it wasn't Jesus that came out of the desert or that Jesus was never actually the son of god, and that Christianity was a trick created by satan. Conversely lets assume it is vice versa, satan created Judaism then god sent himself down in the form of Jesus to correct things. What evidence other then words in a book(s) exist to prove either are true or that either a false? Or for that matter the concepts as they exist today are correct?
Report as
When we then add other faiths and ancient beliefs no longer practiced, this line of logic just continues to add to the confusion. So logic seems to dictate if a god existed it either does not (or cannot) want its presence known, or, none exist.
Occam's razor.
Report as
The name of the almighty is important to Jews, but if there is but one god, I quote the Bard:
Juliet:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
As to the merits of logic regarding your argument, I do not employ logic when I walk my dog; the relationship is ineffably other than a logic exercise, involving the love and loyalty of a boy and his dog. It neither is provable with logic, nor is the measure of the relationship.
Report as
Add a comment...
Do you have an answer?
Answer this question...
Did you mean?
Login or Join the Community to answer
Popular Searches