Atheist Poll: Was there an historical Yeshua?

[kai]

I would have thought "no opinion" would have sufficed.

In any event, I'm still somewhat (pleasantly) surprised at the vote ...

no i have an opinion, which is i have no real evidence to support the view that he existed but i am no expert so i will give jesus the benefit of the doubt because i cannot prove he didnt exist either. In what form, a prophet,son of God,or wise man ,Magi,or even a just legend like Arthur or Robin Hood ---havnt a clue.

 

[rojse]

Just out of curiosity ...

I would be accepting of the idea that a man by that name existed, and he may have had strong views on religion, but as to all of the feats attributed to him, no.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would be accepting of the idea that a man by that name existed, and he may have had strong views on religion, but as to all of the feats attributed to him, no.

This is an atheist poll, and I would hardly expect an atheist to accept "all of the feats attributed to him."

So, we now stand at 9 to 3 in favor of historicity. Good ...

(My guess it that the single "Cetrainly" was the result of a drive-by theist. )

 

[rojse]

This is an atheist poll, and I would hardly expect an atheist to accept "all of the feats attributed to him."

I agree that is the implicit assumption given, but I wanted to make clear what I was voting for, exactly.

So, we now stand at 9 to 3 in favor of historicity. Good ...

(My guess it that the single "Cetrainly" was the result of a drive-by theist. )

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would love to see the 4 folks who voted "certainly" declare themselves.

 

[rojse]

I would love to see the 4 folks who voted "certainly" declare themselves.

You entertain this as a remote possibility?

You should have put this in the Atheist only area, but then, you would not have gotten as many responses, I suppose.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So far it's 5 to 1 in favor if historicity. I'm impressed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I voted "probably not". I see too many odd coincidences and links to previous beliefs. I recognize there's not a whole lot of evidence either way, but to me, the most reasonable option seems to be that the Jesus myth is the product of previous myth, and therefore the events of the Gospels would not be based on any historical events in first-century Judea.

I have no doubt that if you were to go back in time, you'd find plenty of people in Galilee or Jerusalem named Yeshua or something like it; you might even find a small number of them preaching in some way... but if the Christ story came from somewhere else, then none of them would have anything to do with the Jesus of the Bible.

 

[rojse]

So far it's 5 to 1 in favor if historicity. I'm impressed.

Are you impressed because you agree with this hypothesis, or that you are surprised that so many atheists believe that Jesus might have existed?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you impressed because you agree with this hypothesis, or that you are surprised that so many atheists believe that Jesus might have existed?

Yes ...

 

[Yerda]

No opinion.

 

[camanintx]

Voted "Probably Not".

While is was a common name back then, I don't think there was a single person responsible for starting a new religion and almost certainly no one who did everything the Bible credits him with.

 

[eccentricjdo]

The odds of the 11 re maining apostles's being in hallocenegic states following the purported Ressurection are revealed to be very thin by the facts of human psychology.

They weren't in a state of expentation.

The were not doing similar activities. Some went back to being fishermen, whiles others just gave up on life.

Collective hallucination is rare even when induced by hypnotist (get 11 inivi duals to collectively hallucinate! Really, I dare you to!)

Lastly, no one dies for his own lies.

 

[fantome profane]

I am another who voted “probably”, and I am not surprised that it getting the most votes (I think Jay is just a pessimist). What I am surprised about is that no one has asked for a definition of “historical Yeshua”. As has been pointed out it was a very common name. We can be almost absolutely certain that someone existed with that name in that area of the world around that time. So what would it take to distinguish this “historical Yeshua” form just some random guy named “Yeshua”?

This is an atheist poll so obviously “son of God” is not a factor, and I think we could safely toss out the miracles as well. So what factors does this “historical Yeshua” need to have for us to declare that this is the guy we are talking about?

 

[lamplighter]

The odds of the 11 re maining apostles's being in hallocenegic states following the purported Ressurection are revealed to be very thin by the facts of human psychology.

Collective hallucination is rare even when induced by hypnotist (get 11 inivi duals to collectively hallucinate! Really, I dare you to!)

Acid and/or mushrooms, Pink Floyd, plus strobe light = Mass hallucination :yes:

I am another who voted “probably”, and I am not surprised that it getting the most votes (I think Jay is just a pessimist). What I am surprised about is that no one has asked for a definition of “historical Yeshua”. As has been pointed out it was a very common name. We can be almost absolutely certain that someone existed with that name in that area of the world around that time. So what would it take to distinguish this “historical Yeshua” form just some random guy named “Yeshua”?

This is an atheist poll so obviously “son of God” is not a factor, and I think we could safely toss out the miracles as well. So what factors does this “historical Yeshua” need to have for us to declare that this is the guy we are talking about?

Well there probably could've been someone who went around preaching named Yeshua, maybe even held outside assemblies. If he was charismatic enough might have gotten the local fishermen to donate some of the catch on a good day and helped the poor, but who knows exactly, I'm sure you'd have to dig through allot of myth to uncover the historical Yeshua and what really happened. After all the people who wrote the Bible got all the information second hand which means all the facts are blown out of proportion anyway, not to mention the Bible wasn't available to the public until the invention of the printing press, so I wouldn't be surprised if some stuff was added in later, and then the illiteracy of the general population as well, how many people would've been able to read the Bible before 1439 if given the chance anyway?

 

[Pah]

Arrgh! I thought is was that guy that was supposed to have taken down the walls of Jericho. HE arrived 3 centuries after the walls were already rubble.

 

[Smoke]

I said "certainly," but I would have picked "almost certainly" if the choice had been available, and of course that doesn't mean I think the gospels are historically accurate accounts.

 

[Smoke]

The odds of the 11 re maining apostles's being in hallocenegic states following the purported Ressurection are revealed to be very thin by the facts of human psychology.

They weren't in a state of expentation.

The were not doing similar activities. Some went back to being fishermen, whiles others just gave up on life.

Collective hallucination is rare even when induced by hypnotist (get 11 inivi duals to collectively hallucinate! Really, I dare you to!)

1) Hallucination and delusion are not the same thing. That is, you can be delusional without hallucinating.
2) The historicity of Christian accounts about the apostles is, to say the least, very much in doubt.

Lastly, no one dies for his own lies.

Not true, and more to the point, there's no reliable evidence for the tradition that ten of the (supposed) eleven suffered martyrdom.

 

[gnomon]

Why should anyone be surprised that atheists would believe that there may have been a figure in actual resistance that was considered a messiah by a small cult.

There were several. That one of these may be the referenced "Jesus" is quite likely though the outside sources from the gospels are not inspiring nor hardly reliable as to the Gospels being evidence of anything more than one sect following one guy names Jesus.

The miracles, credited statements, etc. Assuming Jesus doesn't assume those as well. Given the vague, universal and unoriginal nature of the teachings......the assumption that there may have been a teacher walking around giving those statements assumes nothing miraculous.

No surprises necessary.