Whether Jesus truly existed or not, surely there are actions and attitudes expressed in his story that are worthy of respect, admiration, and even emulation.
Regardless of a belief in god striving to better oneself is one of the highest goals anyone can pursue. To show an example of what that might look like is admirable, whether the tale is true or not.
Also, even a great example may be flawed. Humans are flawed and this so are or creations. What's worse is that we are still unable to agree on which aspects within ourselves are flawed. I think the only truly ignorant statement an atheist could make about Jesus would be to claim he was perfect (perfectly good or perfectly evil) because no human is capable of conceiving of such an example.

Would you mind if I copy/paste this? It would make a great Thanksgiving toast.

I am not convinced that an individual man named "Jesus" ever actually existed. I think he is likely an amalgamation of messiah figures, and beliefs about god men and dying and rising gods, that were prevalent at that time and in that extended area. That aside, there are some good teachings/behaviors attributed to this character; although not all of them totally original. And, there are behaviors/teachings that, by today's standards, are downright immoral. A big problem with the Jesus character is that he was elevated to God status. Because some (meaning most Christians) have given him that status, one can point out the facts that he was scientifically ignorant; said some terrible things (such as comparing Samaritans to dogs and upholding slavery); and was, apparently, limited in his powers. These all can be used to argue against his godhood. It is still possible, however, to argue that he was an overall good man--but one who was still limited by many of the cultural beliefs of his time; again--if he even existed. And, if he didn't, we can see how the Jesus character shows at least some positive evolution of ideas.

I think Jesus was most likely just a fictional story. The book of Mark, is attributed to the first story and there are no fulfilled prophecies, no virgin (sexless) birth, and no resurrections. It was the story of a man who was a "miracle worker" which was pretty common in that time period, who came to be believe that the was the messiah and he was crucified for it. End of story. However, it was a popular story.

When Cervantes wrote "Don Quixote", it was a popular story too, and there were no copyright laws to protect the writers rights, so there were many imitators using the same characters.

I think when the first story of Jesus came out, it was popular and spawned a lot of imitators, who used the same characters, but they incorporated known themes of the times from other religions, such as the virgin birth and resurrection, and added details to make it appear like he fulfilled prophecies (like the three wise men). They then added other miracles, such as changing watr into wine, walking on water and so forth.

It is estimated that there were at least three dozen versions of the story of Jesus and perhaps even more than sixty at one time. After the church took over 200 years to decide which "gospels" were valid, or creted a reasonable story line without too many contradictions and were left with "the four gospels," they ordered all copies of all other "gospels destroyed. They mostly succeeded, but some survived the purge.

So, anyway, I think of Jesus as a fictional character whom people believe to have actually been real, just like many people today think that Sherlock Holmes was a real person.

I always like your posts daddy4pugs. You have total agreement from me.

INORITE. Like most christians don't read the damn book, they just focus on whatever quote someone else told them that week and what they were told it means.

I am more than a bit puzzled, @daddy4pugs Your original statement is directed against atheists who consider Jesus to have been a good man and teacher. Your argument, however, is directed against theists since it is a rather effective demonstration that Jesus was not a good god.

Come again? You are indicting a historic Jesus, a man, for not curing all leprosy and blindness, for not ending poverty, for harming trees and pigs with his words, for not staying dead, and for not knowing about things a man of his time and place had no occasion to know. You also "accuse" him of not existing - which, if he didn't, renders moot whether he is to be blamed for not doing things he couldn't have if he had been a man of his time.

The only case you've made against Jesus the man here - and that quite thinly - is that he "stole 12 men from their families, advised the poor to be complacent and to give unto Caesar." Since he did not employ force in calling his disciples, there was no "stealing", and paying taxes to imperial Rome was arguably prudent (besides which - taking him to task for that directive - is to ignore the context that the question about taxes was a trap intended to get him arrested by the Romans). I won't dispute that he encouraged docility among the poor vis-a-vis their oppressors (what do you expect of a man who seems to have been a pacifist?), but he also upset the social norms of his time by associating with outcasts like prostitutes, lepers, and tax collectors, describing a good-hearted Samaritan (also anathema), and calling out the hypocrisy of priests, scribes, and Pharisees. Given that he also encouraged people to help the poor, the sick, the weak, and the suffering, I fail to see that he falls so far short of the designation of a good man and teacher.

For the record, I have had no occasion whatsoever to comment on Jesus's goodness or lack thereof for decades. Goodness isn't a valid term of historical and social scientific inquiry, so it doesn't generally crop up in my mind professionally, and I don't look much at all at 2000-year-old teachings for ethical decisions in my personal life. So I'm not here to defend Jesus, who is long dead and won't care, but to (a) question a poorly constructed argument and ask what's so wrong about atheists acknowledging that Jesus had some significant positive qualities as a man.

Hi,

Excellent meme, by the way, I really liked it. I think your post hits the hammer on the nail regarding the historical accuracy of what is said in the gospels. There's definitely a distinction between a historical Jesus and a spiritual/theological/faith Jesus. As an atheist I personally think that there was a man named Jesus at some point in modern day Israel. but that's because even secular agnostic scholars of antiquity like Bart Ehrman generally agree that he existed as a person. Everything else is suspect to extreme scrutiny and need for evidence.

Some readings you may enjoy are the wikipedia articles on Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus