Apparently you can't do polls on here.... but

Do any of you think that Jesus actually existed? What do category do you fall into?

A. Believed he existed, claims are false

B. Believed he existed, claims are exaggerated

C. Don't believe he existed

D. Believe he existed, claims are true (sorry had to leave the idiot category open)

Views: 6642

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If I hear a mythological story from the far distant past, and then I hear a story about Jesus doing the same thing or better, how do either story gain credibility for me? A story retold is a story retold and there is no mystery to either one.

Yeah, OK. No-one here is arguing for the existence of miracles, least of all me.

But some here are making the concrete claim "The gospels are based on stories about Horus and Osiris". I'm saying that's false. I'm not sure what credibility has to do with that: it's a historical claim that's either true or false.

Then when the same stories as in the gospels appear to have happened at an earlier time that would appear to make the gospels false. If I'm wrong we can always claim that the devil did it just to throw you off.

Then when the same stories as in the gospels appear to have happened at an earlier time that would appear to make the gospels false.

Yes. Or at least when the parallels are obvious enough to rule out coincidence.

Unfortunately the best source for these parallels so far, is a New Age hippie who believes in Atlantis and space pygmees and doesn't have any actual reference backing her up. Can you do better? Because that's how you actually prove this claim, not by stomping your feet and repeating obvious statements.

You seem to think I'm defending some New Age hippie. Why so? There are many stories older that the bible stories that seem to come from similar sources. Would you call this coincidence? I think your "coincidence" would appear to make the bible false. Now you think I'm stomping my feet repeating obvious statements. If they are that obvious why would you think the bible was valid?

Maybe god has no imagination. He has to borrow things.

Now you think I'm stomping my feet repeating obvious statements.

Yes, and still very generally talking in circles without bringing any actual examples to the table.

Let's see you bring up some "stories older than the Bible stories that seem to come from similar sources", and we'll see how they measure up. Check your sources carefully ;)

If the story is a worldwide flood story but the names are different why would you need to compare? If it's a story of a Jesus- like man, so similar in his life and death, on into resurrection, why would you need to compare? The point is simply in whether there was a similar earlier story. If so, the bible is a fraud and a copycat of other folklore. How else would you put it together here? Nitpick that the devil planted the evidence. Tertullian or Martin Luther might make those claims. I wouldn't waste my time. You can see through this bullshit a mile away!

Matt, the reply to you for the "atheists" scholars you listed, is closed.

I use just a short comment for your reply: All "atheist" scholars are not atheists. If a scholar in theology says that he/she has not religious belief, it does NOT mean that he/she is an atheist.

A scholar who's deep up his/her ears into Theology is still biased because... *THEOLOGY* and there is only one kind of Theology, the Christian one, so whoever studies Theology does not make religion comparisons, thus no Theologian will admit that Christianity is a plagiarism of other religions.

Leon, I agree!

I've seen some deluded guys, like Matt, who want to spread the idiotic idea that some scholars are atheists and still admitting the bible is "true".

The reality shows that scholars, when they became atheists, they use their studies of the bible to show that the bible is false. Those atheists kick the asses of those theists who say that atheists have no knowledge about the bible.

Matt, how can you say the claim the Jesus story is based on Horus and Osiris is false? 

Matt, I heard ancient stories of Druid legends and heard the same stories as told by St Patrick. I know the Druid legends are verbal and come through the ages of centuries with all the problems attached to oral stories. When I hear the claim that St. Patrick tells the same story with name changes, why should I believe St Patrick's story has its foundation on the facts? 

When I hear the verbal stories of Spokane Indian legend and hear the same story with Jesus' name replacing the old tribal name, I know the tribal story comes to us from oral legend. The same story with a different name attached to it has no reliability for me, except I do find the stories interesting 

Not to mention claiming to heal the sick, and then saying an epileptic boy was twisted and faithless. What a jerk! I think this garbage was made up by some evil motherf*ckers. Not even creative enough to make up their own god.

Let's see if we can find another name. "father fuckers" perhaps, or "beast fuckers", or "hand fuckers"?

Women have had the victim role for far too long. 

Ethiopian migrants tell of torture and rape in Yemen

From India and Turkey to Oxford, we live in a perpetual state of wa...

What will it take to stop Isis using rape as a weapon of war?


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service