tough questions for atheists 4: jesus: liar, lunatic, lord?

[kckid2112]

Jesus was a myth in a plagerized story, not a real person, and no more the son of god than Santa was/is.

God is just a hypothsis

[Nick7690]

Jesus=not real. The bible is evidence of nothing (besides god committing "holy rape" on Mary and forcing her to give birth to his son/himself, genocide, and being crazy)

[Atheistatheart1]

He didn't exist so your question is moot.

[koroigetsuga]

CS Lewis' argument is fallacious is because it assumes the bible is honest in reporting on jesus. The changing dogmas of the 4 gospels show differing theologies impacted how they portray Jesus. Furthermore the argument ignores the possibility Jesus was a moral teacher or regular prophet and that latter christianities invented his godhood

[homer30]

Jesus showed to me that he is the lord

[Shipuh]

I never thought I would convert ever to Deism...

Atheists can be just as bad at proselytism as Christians can, but as long as your faith works for you, then don't give it up.

It was after my reanylization of my definition of divine intervention that changed my world-view, and it did not come from any kind of rational argument.

I'm leaving off with a quote from omedyashar and say:

"'Who says these are the only options?' Is it possible he was Misunderstood, Misrepresented, or Mistaken?"

[DepricatedZero]

grats on starting school man. Been 2 years about, halfway through? How's it going? I have some good explanations for you that I'll offer...soon, as a video response.

[FiverBeyond]

I generally go with the theory that the biblical record of Jesus could be anything from a mixture of different people, to a complete fabrication, which makes your question a little non sequitor.

For example, certainly the same things could be said of Buddha. He also influenced many, many people... so he was either a liar, a lunatic, or God, right?

Whichever explanation you give for Buddha is probably very similar to the explanation I give for Christ.

[chirs3]

You're leaving out at least one possibility. That Jesus was a perfectly normal human being who taught some good things, and it was his followers who were the liars or lunatics.

[RobotzAreAwesome]

He was most likely slightly lunny, with his followers being extreme lunatics who created the myths we now know about him today.

[casebritain]

I didnt watch your whole video because you ripped off your argument from a Josh McDowell book.

[gtg309v]

Your questions suck.

[RemsUnheardofArmy]

Dude.

Jeffery Dahmer.

Adolf Hitler

I'd say they impacted people

[Shhhhhhhhh69]

Here I go again SHIT FOR BRAINS!! By your own admission, "There's no way to prove or disprove the existance of Jesus." So, What about hinduism, the greek gods, islam and all the other religiions? What makes those unprovable stories less likely in your mind?....Oh I'm sory...I forgot....I'm trying to reason with A FUCKING 19 YEAR OLD RETARD.

[kailremsasar]

A man comes to a boy and tells him to break away from his family, to give up all material things and follow him, to love him  above anything else... If this story occurs to a 21st Century Christian family, they would say that the boy has joined a cult and is being brainwashed by a guru. If it happens to a Jewsih family in the first century, they would say exactly the same thing. The only difference is that, 2000 years later, people would call the second lost child a saint who walked with God.

[CatholicofRome]

The difference is that the Man is NOT telling little boys to come follow him, that would be Michael Jackson. But good try.

[philip1201]

Probably a bit crazy, for a big part a liar, but for the greatest part just a religious person.

[prosperabovehaters]

what's up catholicofrome...i believe in Jesus Christ ofcourse cause i'm a christian ...but isn't Publius Lentulus a fictious character?

[CatholicofRome]

Maybe. But it's really hard to prove which documents are real and which are fake. I don't believe Publius is a key figure in proving Christ's existence, so I'm not going to argue that one for very long. It's not the point.

[PvblivsAelivs]

You bring up a large following as indicating he was unlike anyone else. I must disagree. There was a certain German leader who had a large following. Now, this proves nothing more than your claim of unlike any other liar does not follow. Historically, many wicked leaders have done things that were good for their followers.

Incidentally, my reading of the account of the "trial" looks like he is trying to talk his way out of it.

[CatholicofRome]

Please take your blinders off people. None of these comments is meant to be a "proof" in and of itself. There is no such thing when we look at history. We must see ALL of the facts as they fit together within context. Just that he had a large following did not make him different from everyone else, it was a combination of his teachings, miracles, following, the NATURE of his following and the longevity of his following, as well as many other aspects that make him unique.

[PvblivsAelivs]

Everything he did was good? I think not. According to the legend, he cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season and in curing a demoniac, he decided that letting the demons drown a herd of pigs to ruin the livelihood of an outsider (the swineherd) was useful to his cause.

[smashers1114]

If Jesus was a liar, he would be unlike any other liar ever.

If he was a crazy person, he would be unlike any other crazy person ever.

If he was the son of god, then he would be unlike any other person who ever existed.

That argument works for all possibilities.

[CatholicofRome]

But that last one is the point- He WAS unlike any other person who ever existed. He was God Himself in human form. As for the rest of the ridiculous comments trying to make a case with hitler and other crazy people, you cannot compare crazy men who killed people for their political or monetary gain with a man who lived solely to make the world a better place. He taught peace and love for your fellow human. If nothing else he should be thought of in the same light as Ghandi, a creat man who

[CatholicofRome]

was not only extremely influencial, but had good reason to do it and it is a terrible disrespect and stupidity to speak of them as anything but.

[smashers1114]

Why is the evidence for the last possibility more compelling than for the first two?

[CatholicofRome]

because there IS evidence for this. He performed an incredible amount of miracles. People witnessed His greatness. The only reason that the other two even are a possibility is because nobody can actually get inside His head and see what he knows and thinks. There HAS to be doubt possible to make it a great accomplishment to believe on faith. there are no reasons for him to have been crazy or a liar based on ANYTHING except people who choose to not believe He actually WAS the Son of God.

[kailremsasar]

Isn't odd that in one of the most documented eras of history nobody outside the Bible mentions Jesus' miracles? That has always baffled me. No a line in a letter, no a comentary in a journal, no a song or folklore tale among the Jews. 500 peolpe saw the resurrected Jesus and no one mentions this great miracle outside the Bible, and even there is a hear-say of sorts. Even if Josephus' highly disputed comment is real,it does no describe one specific miracle. Doesn't that bother you a bit?

[CatholicofRome]

This is because everyone who saw Jesus and was able to write about Him was a believer! Hence it went down as scripture! Remember, most people couldn't read and write at this time, and there certainly weren't printed documents/books. Most of the history was by word of mouth, and this is most prominent with Christianity.

[kailremsasar]

And that my friend, is one of the problems I see with Scripture. It took almost 30 years for the first Gospel to be written, 60 for the last -it is very likely that during that time changes, intentional or not, occurred in the narrative. I often hear that people of that era where learned history by heart so we can be cofident. True. By these were people trained since childhood to do so and this costum usually took place in societies with no written documents -not the case of Jesus' Palestine.

[french0atheist]

Damn! Well done!

Oh and by the way: no it doesn't bother me at all.

[hardhittn63]

He could have been misrecorded or misquoted. There was probobly more than one guy named jesus at the time.

Lets assume Jesus lived. what descriptions are you talking about? We have no clue what Jesus looked like.

Hinduism has lasted way longer than christianity. Christianity is widespread and popular because of imperealism and good timing.

[scootscr15]

fails so hard

[dechha1981]

blue eyes? Really? That suprises me actually, considdering he was Jewish. However, this charm of his, it's actually quite common abongst criminals. I'm not saying he WAS a criminal, I'm just saying such carms are quite common amongst conmen and dictators. Aparantly most dictators are very pleasent to meet in person, they're only monsters from a distance. My brother's like that actually. charming, but a thief and a criminal. Some people call him a "User".

[dechha1981]

You have no idea how influential crazy people can sometimes be. Was Hitler crazy? Maybe. Was Joan of Ark crazy? I say yes. Charles Manson, definitely crazy. L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology, even admitted on film that he was crazy, and he's STILL got a huge cult. Come to think of it, when you really think about it, all the most radical, influencial leaders and rebels in history were almost certainly a little crazy.

[dechha1981]

I must slightly disagree with you around 02;57 Yes I agree that there WAS a real Jesus, but I disagree that they COULN'T have made all this fuss about a nonexistent person.

There's sime similarities between teh Subgeniouses and the Church of scientology (which is a bit like saying there's some similarities between the Marx Bros and the Mafia) but one of the differences is, there really was an L. Ron Hubbard, whereas in all likeleyhood, J.R. "Bob" Dobbs never existed.

[dechha1981]

I think there was a real person born around about September 6BC named Joshua. I think Joshua was a cult leader and a nut. I also think that the New Testiment was basically a fictional story based on a real person, not unlike The monkey King, Alice in Wonderland and Barron Munchausen, and that the half-god named Jesus you believe in has basically the same connection to Joshua that Santa has to St. Nickolas.

So... I pick "Crazy".

[websnarf]

You are the human embodiment of hate. Your delusion teaches you to spew that hatred to everyone that challenges you. Fortunately for you, you have no need to turn that hatred upon yourself, as you have no mental capacity to challenge your own assumptions anyways.

[websnarf]

Whether or not some guy named Jesus exists is irrelevant.

The stories told about him in the Bible are farcically untrue. None of them were written until at least 30 years after his death. You are asking us to evaluate the veracity of fictitious stories.

People say good things about Hitler, Charles Manson and George W. Bush too. They've had plenty of influence on people.

Your argument is not an argument at all. And there is no tough question here either.

[websnarf]

You might convert some theists to atheism with videos like this. Sort of how like Bush is converting some republicans to at least reconsider their party affiliation.

[hardhittn63]

Fuck democrats. Id rather have my financial freedom then no freedom at all. Bush is either in denial or a neocon. He doesn't represent the base of the party at all. Stop with the bashing.

[websnarf]

I did not mention the democrats.

Republicans don't give you financial freedom unless you are part of the super rich, or a contractor for the military. Every republican President in my lifetime has lead the country to near economic collapse.

But that has nothing to do with the narrow point I was making about Bush. I personally *know* people who voted for Bush, who just want to take their vote back, and are considering voting for Obama.

[UbiquitousChe]

Did Jesus exist: I'd say yes - although I expect that many of the stories regarding his life have been greatly distorted over time.

As for the liar/lunatic/Lord thing, I'd go with liar, but a *benign* liar; a social reformer.

Would that make him an idiot because he got killed? Not neccesarily - he may have considered it a small price to pay for the changes he was trying to bring about.

[UbiquitousChe]

Would that make him a hypocrite? Well, maybe a little. But if that was the only option open to him to bring about reform - to infiltrate the religion of His time and change it from within into something new.

Would this mean that he'd sent his followers to hell? Well, I'd disagree that there was even a hell to start with. Or if there is, maybe the rules for getting into heaven and hell aren't as stringent as the scriptures say.

Just my thoughts. :D

[UbiquitousChe]

Oh, and best of luck with your finals.

[gautamagaroo]

my willful ignorance.

tells me not to deal with you a closed minded human being.

but since i must show compassion to all living beings i will listen to you, provided you don't use the bible or the gospels, you are free to discuss jesus, my willful ignorance does not conflict with him.

[Seasurf88]

Thanks for the kind words. Jesus probably never existed. But if he did, the title of your video ignores another possibility: Mistaken memories of his followers, influenced by emotion. Also: Jim Jones was crazy, but he convinced hundreds of his People's Temple followers that he was divine, got them to give him all their money, got them to leave the USA, live in a remote jungle, and kill themselves and their children. Now imagine if he had lived in the credulous era of 30 AD Palestine.

[gautamagaroo]

The bible tells us to "Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding".

i rest my case against the bible.

as for jesus i agree with Philosophobia

[Philosophobia]

I think Jesus existed. I don't think he was the son of God. I wouldn't go as far as to call him a liar, but I do think he did die because of what he was doing. I think he was probably more along the lines of a con artist. His fan base was mostly the poor and uneducated in need of "something". Watch the documentary "guru busters" to see what I mean. People think there are literal God people walking around today in India. There was also Apollonius of Tyanna at the same time as Jesus...

[Philosophobia]

In addition to this, I fail to see how if he was born a man, why he would have magic powers to walk on water and such. How??? With his mind??? How was he able to bend the laws of physics?

I think he was probably a magician, who was built up more after his death by embellished stories over decades. This is why All four gospels have different details and contradictions.

Aside from this, if he REALLY had "magic" powers, I think EVERYONE would have believed. Why didn't J.C. just show the romans?

[hallelujaallahuakbar]

You make one huge assumption - that liars, hypocrites, and lunatics can't be moral philosophers.

Can no insane person walking the street speak truths?

Some very bright people are CONVINCED there are UFOs. Should I be swayed if another is CONVINCED he is son of god? Our brains work in mysterious ways.

Ted Haggard and other church leaders have been hypocrites. But did they not spread your beloved Gospel to someone?

[hallelujaallahuakbar]

Your second massive assumption is that crazy evil people can't have huge impact.

What is Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc, then?

[PerishBrave]

i dont think he was real. but if he was, i feel he was probly crazy, or profited from this spread of believe that wasnt mentioned in the "holy scripture." but good luck with your finals man. i hope you ace them!

[elisabethpope]

But of course Hitler and Mao have been proven and accepted by history as liars and madmen--Jesus Christ has not--in fact--More believers are converted daily due to his teachings and noble character--and of course--a huge dose of grace--which allows Faith to enter his/her heart.

[bitbutter]

"More believers are converted daily due to his teachings and noble character"

The fact that people convert to Christianity does not legitimise any of its truth claims any more than people becoming Muslims strengthens the case for Islam.

[WizardJim]

And, of course, Islam is growing faster than christianity, ergo by this logic Islam is presumably more 'right'? People are abandoning religion faster than either, presumably that means they're all wrong? (well, they are, but that's besides the point.)

[bitbutter]

"But of course Hitler and Mao have been proven and accepted by history as liars and madmen--Jesus Christ has not--in fact"

That's right. We didn't get as far as conclusively showing that Jesus existed as a historical figure yet.

[CatholicofRome]

actually, we have. There's plenty of historians that present proof and claim that Jesus definitely existed. Claims for His non-existence were made-up. Either way, one side of the story is made up, and it is much more likely that people claiming that He is NOT real is much more likely, because that is simply a prophesy fulfilled (about divisions and false teachings). Like I said in the video though, it is very likely that this might have to be accepted on faith.. your rejection of it is also done

[bitbutter]

"There's plenty of historians that present proof and claim that Jesus definitely existed. "

Sure, and plenty who say that we can't know that for sure, and some who say we can be fairly certain that he didn't exist.

So no, we haven't got as far as being able to conclusively say that he existed i'm afraid.

[CatholicofRome]

on faith, because there's no proof that the many "facts" and claims made by historians for His nonexistence are actually truth, as opposed to the millions of people, believers and non-believers alike, who know that Jesus actually did exist.

[bitbutter]

Did you get my video response?

[CatholicofRome]

like I said I'll get to the video responses eventually, I'm ridiculously busy..right now I have a little time and wanted to follow up to see what the initial responses were from my video, but I'll probably stop all responses and comments here in a little bit for probably at least until the middle of May...maybe one or two here and there but not much.. finals are approaching!!

[bitbutter]

np, good luck with your finals!

[bitbutter]

"your rejection of it is also done on faith"

I don't claim to know whether Jesus existed. Though i'm sympathetic towards the mythicist account.

I am not rejecting anything on faith. Further, if i *was* convinced that Jesus wasn't a historical figure, i would have reached that conclusion through assessing evidence and applying reason. The conclusion would still have nothing to do with faith.

[CatholicofRome]

I don't doubt that you would have assessed evidence and applied reason, but I did the same thing and reached the conclusion that He exists. The problem is that there are respectable sources and historians on both sides of this fence. I'm not really sure if you could come to a conclusive answer. But I am always in search of one, it would be nice...lol things like finals slow me down though! curse facebook and youtube for being horrible tools of procrastination...!

[bitbutter]

"but I did the same thing and reached the conclusion that He exists"

You now seem to be saying something different from what i thought you said in the video.

Faith is belief without (on in spite of) evidence and reason. I though you considered faith necessary to believe in Jesus' divinity (and i agree).

[WizardJim]

Part 1: So-called "psychics" who possess demostrably no such ability but are simply conducting magic tricks often start to belive their own bullshit to the point where they will swear blind they really are psychic even when presented with proof that they are not. That's option four; he wasn't lying, he was just decieving himself.

I'm not saying it's necessarily the case but it is an option.

Also, I would question the statement that jesus was "the purest, noblest character known in history"

[WizardJim]

Part 2: There's a fine line between Genius and Madness, and it's certainly not an impediment to making a great impact on the world, attracting people to your point of view or understanding the inner workings of the human heart. If you think so then you just aren't looking E.g. Hitler, barking crazy but probably the most charismatic orator in history, and have you seen the videos of thousands of chinese people waving Chairman Mao's little red book?

[CatholicofRome]

Yes, as elisabethpope pointed out-A charismatic speaker doesn't make up for lies and insanity. As for your psychic scenario, that sounds like He would have been crazy to me.. maybe it's a particular kind of crazy, but if He believed something that wasn't true even when presented with proof (I'm only humoring you, there has never been such proof) then He would have been crazy. Everyone at that moment would have given up. There would have been virtually nobody after His death to carry on His

[bitbutter]

"Yes, as elisabethpope pointed out-A charismatic speaker doesn't make up for lies and insanity. "

It's hard to understand how you can even say that when we living examples of precisely that kind of charlatan: Uri Geller and Sai Baba for a start.

[WizardJim]

Rock on, my man. I forgot about Sai Baba, the guy who had a million people turn up to his birthday, quite some following and he's not even dead yet!

[CatholicofRome]

teachings, much less to carry it on during His lifetime. So why would you question that Jesus was the purest noblest character known in history? I think this is a challenge! who should we put Him up against?

[WizardJim]

Right, in reverse order;

Take your pick, there are innumerable great individuals throughout history, i'd suggest Harry S. Truman as a good start.

No, self-deception isn't mental illness, or else we'd all be crazy.

Plus, ol' Adolph never had the benefit of a religion in his name, that tends to give you major propaganda-cred and he lived in the age of video and discplined historic writing so we know enough about he minutia of his life to slap a "barking nutjob" label on him with good reason

[WizardJim]

in comparison we know next to nothing about Jesus, the bible skips right from his childhood to the beginings of his ministry with ne'er a glance as to what happened in between and the depiction of him is vague and charicatured at best.

[WizardJim]

Other great individuals;

Albert Einstein, The unknown soldier of Tianamen square, Cho Hi Min, Srinivasa Aiyangar Ramanujan, Ali Sardar Jafri etc, ect.

[CatholicofRome]

As for middle and far-eastern characters, I don't know enough about them to make any particular claims, but albert einstein was a great dude, extremely smart, but I would hardly put him as the noblest and purest man alive. Harry S. Truman, didn't he drop the bomb? Now, I don't condemn him for it, because we didn't know the consequences, and it saved thousands of American lives, but now that we see the devestation, again, probably a disqualifier for the "noblest purest man alive" award.

[CatholicofRome]

We know next to nothing about Jesus? maybe He didn't do anything biblical during His private life. There's a reason His life is separated into His private and His public life. There's a clear difference between the two. And we pretty much know every detail of His private life. What He lived for was to spread His word, and that happened during His public life. There's no basis for your claim on depictions of him being vague and charicatured, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

[WizardJim]

"There's no basis for your claim on depictions of him being vague and charicatured, so I have no idea what you are talking about"

Apparently you're not as familiar with the bible as you think, most modern novelists can make an imaginary character almost real yet the Jesus (who was apparently a real person) in the bible is wooden and prosaic at best.

"probably a disqualifier for the "noblest purest man alive" award."

Gonna have to do better than that, your boy invented hell, no contest.

[WizardJim]

"probably because he was a crazy madman with an evil message!"

Or because he didn't want to muddy the waters with one of his greatest supporters; the Catholic church, but hey, who knows?

[CatholicofRome]

What you are referring to, I assume, is Pope Pius XII and the fact that he didn't publicly denounce german nazism? Well if you look at history, he saved thousands of jews from nazi germany, so he clearly wasn't a nazi. He didn't publicly denounce the particular parties involved, because the Pope isn't supposed to get involved with political affairs-He denounced the moral affaris happening, calling the mass murders atrocities, but couldn't get into specifics because it would infer all of germany

[CatholicofRome]

or communism. The Pope has to remain neutral on those grounds because he must be a politically neutral figure. He saved thousands of lives during WW2 and it would be great if people actually looked at the facts of what people did, not rumors and lies.

[WizardJim]

So your going to tell me that the vatican never signed a Concordat with the Nazi party? That vast sums of nazi-party money didn't pass through the vatican bank where it couldn't be seized? That the catholic church was in no way responsible for the 1900 years of christian anti-semitism that culminated in the holocaust?

Pull the other one, it has bells on.

[WizardJim]

Oh, and double "Pull the other one, it has bells on" for the pope having to remain "a politically neutral figure", surely not even you can belive that.

[CatholicofRome]

lol I am definitely more familiar with the bible than you are if you think "invented hell" means that He is evil. God made hell to put people where the deserve; not only where they deserve, but where they choose to be. they reject God because they WILL not to be with Him and not to believe in Him. your claim that Jesus from the bible is "wooden and prosaic at best" is almost an exact regurgitation of your first comment, there was no elaboration on that.

[WizardJim]

"God made hell to put people where they deserve"

Need I say more? I'm done.

[bitbutter]

"And we pretty much know every detail of His private life."

typo?

[CatholicofRome]

yes it was, I meant to say public life. thank you for respectfully pointing that out.

[CatholicofRome]

Hm, " 'ol Adolph never had the benefit of a religion in his name" probably because he was a crazy madman with an evil message! He killed millions of people because of racism! Jesus preached goodness and peace, and people followed Him because of it. there was no proof to shoot it down at the time, and that's why it survived (for those who believe in what He said, it's also because He told us it would survive until the end of time). Nobody had enough proof to "slap a 'barking nutjob' label on him"