Quote:
Originally Posted by skins
all respectable historians do not deny the existance of Jesus (ie. he was not a "mystical generation"). whether you like it or not, all reliable evidence suggests that he was a real person. he is mentioned in many historical documents, secular and religious. the question is, was he the God, was he crazy, or was he just a good moral teacher?
|
Paging Cowperson. Paging Cheese.
Actually, most "respectable" historians see no reliable evidence for a historical Jesus. I think it would be intellectually dishonest to say there was reliable evidence. And even if there were a historical Jesus, we could safely say with close to 100% certainty that he was not the divine son of god, was not born by virgin birth, did not walk on water, was not resurrected, etc. Jesus is a mythical figure (and not a very original one either if you study other religions from that time and place).
Any evidence for a historical Jesus is hearsay and not contemporary.
Here we go again:
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/
http://atheism.about.com/od/historic...s1/index_r.htm
http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/...om%2Fexist.htm
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.
Atheism does not involve faith IMO (although Margaret Atwood has argued atheism is like religion because it is dogmatic):
http://www.skepdic.com/faith.html
Those of us who are atheists, and believe that everything evolved from natural forces, nearly universally maintain that theists and supernaturalists have a very weak case for their belief, weaker even than the case for Bigfoot, Nessie or Santa Claus. Thus, our disbelief is not an act of faith, and therefore, not non-rational as are those of theists and Christian apologists. However, if Christian apologists insist on claiming that their version of Christianity and the rejections of their views are equally acts of faith, I will insist that the apologists have a non-rational faith, while their opponents have a rational faith. Though I think it would be less dishonest and less misleading to admit that atheists and naturalists do not base their beliefs on faith in any sense close to that of religious faith.