Most? Only most of them? Wow! That's some revelation - so, which bits of it do some atheists believe, or is their a subversive group of quasi-atheists that believe and pretend not to?Most practising atheist don't believe any of it happened!
Most? Only most of them? Wow! That's some revelation - so, which bits of it do some atheists believe, or is their a subversive group of quasi-atheists that believe and pretend not to?Most practising atheist don't believe any of it happened!
the gospels have two different versions and two dont mention it, we can conclude it's made up. putting a date on the birth is entirely arbitrary, except it just happens to fall adjacent to important pagan ceremonies.Completely made up event? He had to be born in order to be crucified.
And most practising Christians would accept that stuff like the three kings and the shepherds turning up probably didn’t happen all at the same time to provide the archetypal Nativity Scene.
That's like our cat. Maybe that's why he acts so aloof: Christ complex.I'll bite. His date of birth is unknown, so a date was chosen.
Jesus is mentioned in writings as early as 37AD by Jewish scribes such as Josephus, who specifically mentions (and backs) his crucifixion. Same with Tacitus and a few others. These people, particularly Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius were not fans of his. Most of their writings were in favour of his crucifixion, calling him a troublemaker/blasphemer and backing Pontius Pilatus.the gospels have two different versions and two dont mention it, we can conclude it's made up. putting a date on the birth is entirely arbitary, except it just happens to fall adjacent to important pagan ceremonies.
Have you watched the Life of Brian, I think you'll be surprisedWhen was Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ born? December 25th, right? That's what we've all agreed, whether it's accurate or not.
Fair enough.
When did he die and come back from the dead? Easter, correct?
Last year, Easter Sunday was March 31st.
This year, it's April 20th.
So why do take one date as gospel but the other is a moveable chocolate feast?
Is it because it's all Horlicks? Or is there a genuine reason?
I'm not sure that's entirely true. There is no contemporaneous evidence and Jesus was a very popular name - Judas and Jacob both being versions of the same name. The only written source is by Josephus and most scholars agree the reference was a much later Christian addition to the text.Many (arguably most) prominent atheist writers accept Jesus, or the person referred to as Jesus, was a person who existed. They don’t believe he was the son of God, but they accept there was a man who existed approximately in the timescales laid out in the Bible.
Atheism isn’t a denial of recorded history, it’s a belief that there is no deity, only evolution.
Cats never let you forget they were worshiped in ancient Egypt. They were once revered. The Leeds United fans of the animal world.That's like our cat. Maybe that's why he acts so aloof: Christ complex.
Christian leaders were very flexible when the Romans were looking for new religions to adopt. Keeping the a mid winter festival as a celebration to replace Saturnalia/Winter Solstice was an easy compromise.
Unrepentant scholar here ! Josephus mentions Jesus in the Antiquities. That would have been a lot later.Jesus is mentioned in writings as early as 37AD by Jewish scribes such as Josephus, who specifically mentions (and backs) his crucifixion. Same with Tacitus and a few others. These people, particularly Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius were not fans of his. Most of their writings were in favour of his crucifixion, calling him a troublemaker/blasphemer and backing Pontius Pilatus.
The point I’m making is that proof of Jesus’s existence and aspects of his life (including birth, preaching, and crucifixion) aren’t really questioned by atheists such as Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists. Talk of Jesus exists contemporaneously outside of the Bible.
What they believe, generalising here, was that he was a bloke, who had followers “bigging him up”, calling himself the son of God, then getting tried, flogged then crucified for being a Very Naughty Boy because the priests, scribes and a lot of powerful people were pissed off that this bloke was going around saying he was the son of God.
The difference in all this is that Christians believe he was indeed the son the God, whereas atheists point out there is no evidence of this except old stories written by his mates and it’s pretty unlikely given there’s no proof God exists anyway.
So you’re telling me the bloke up the town centre claiming to be the son of Christ isn’t the first?!Many (arguably most) prominent atheist writers accept Jesus, or the person referred to as Jesus, was a person who existed. They don’t believe he was the son of God, but they accept there was a man who existed approximately in the timescales laid out in the Bible.
Atheism isn’t a denial of recorded history, it’s a belief that there is no deity, only evolution.
Sorry but noSo you’re telling me the bloke up the town centre claiming to be the son of Christ isn’t the first?!
Sorry but noI did meet some lovely people by Churchill Square though who did something called an “audit” on me.
Seeing them again next week!
So you’re telling me the bloke up the town centre claiming to be the son of Christ isn’t the first?!
Apologies, thought it was clear that I was parodying a previous post!!!Most? Only most of them? Wow! That's some revelation - so, which bits of it do some atheists believe, or is their a subversive group of quasi-atheists that believe and pretend not to?