Verified answer

Why do some people spew such religious crap all the time??

no they are not the same

for once Holocaust deniers are bad people

and their is plenty of evidence for the Holocaust, including eye witness testimonies

but the evidence about Jesus is disputable.

since every thing written about him was written several handed years after his supposed death

I actually believe their was a Jesus, but i can understand why would people doubt his existence

there are many historical figures who's existence is not agreed upon. many of whom have nothing to do with religion. you forget that the world 2000 years ago was much different then today.

Jesus deniers are more like king Arthur deniers. their might have been and English (maybe welsh) king or warlord called Arthur, we don't know, but we can be sure the stories about Excalibur and marlin are fictional.

There was a time when people were criticized if they didn't believe William Tell was a real, historical person.

The problem is, outside of the stories, there is no evidence that this person existed. Even the stories themselves were not written by people who knew Jesus when he was supposed to be alive. We don't even know who actually wrote the four gospels, so the claim that the bible counts as historical evidence for Jesus is not supportable.

EDIT:

Those early historians also don't count as reliable sources. They are only responding to the stories about Jesus, not Jesus himself. If I wrote something about Lord Xenu, who's stories are part of Scientology, should people 1000 years from now consider my writings about Lord Xenu to be proof that he is real?

It is not the same thing at all.

The historicity of Jesus is in fact a matter of contention even by credible scholars. Bruno Bauer was probably the first prominent scholar since the Enlightenment. In modern times there is Richard Carrier, Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty. Though admittedly their view is very much a minority opinion.

Of the historical examples that you give none of them are in the same category as Jesus in terms of their verisimilitude. Charlemagne's life is well documented by his contemporaries. We even have items he wore at his coronation. Muhammad's life is well documented by his contemporaries in the Hadith and by his enemies. Bhudda is a bit more tenuous, I don't feel qualified to speak on his historicity. In the case of Alexander the Great we have his family tomb, also his image on contemporary coins.

For Jesus however, all accounts of his life are hearsay. The synoptic gospels are written in the third person decades after Jesus life. The two examples you gave: "Ignatious of antioch" and "justin martyr [sic]" both were born after the purported death of Jesus. We have nothing Jesus wrote or owned and there is no contemporary account of his life and ministry. Thus all the evidence for his existence is hearsay and circumstantial.

Jesus thus falls into the same historical category as Socrates, William Tell and Robin Hood.

Just so you know I do think the Jesus myth is based on a real historical figure. My reason might seem strange to you: Jesus was well known to be from Nazareth. This would have been obvious to his contemporaries by his dialect. Yet the messiah must be born in the city of David (Bethlehem) in order to conform with prophecy. So, in the Biblical account, a Roman census is invented to place Jesus birth in that city. A census for which there is no historical account nor credibility.

If you were going to invent this story why not just have the Jesus figure come from Bethlehem? It is the utter contrivance of this story which desperately seeks to shoehorn a known figure into a predetermined narrative which leads me to think the Jesus myth must be based, in part, on a real person.

Holocaust deniers are derided for two reasons:

1) Practically all of them are racist, or at least racially motivated in their conclusion.

2) There's a ton of evidence to the contrary.

Not one of these points holds for atheists, even those who doubt the existence of Jesus as a historical figure.

There were several pagan scholars out side of the Bible that believed Zeus existed, so that's not an argument.

For convenience's sake, I assume he did exist, though we only have the beliefs of early Christians to go on, and none of his contemporaries, none of the writers of the Bible ever met him.

Of course not believing in the existence of Jesus is not like the Holocaust deniers, we have mountains of evidence of the Holocaust including first hand accounts, not so for Jesus, especially since Christianity seems to have been invented by Paul, before him it was an insular Jewish cult.

PS we have first hand accounts for Charlemagne, Mohammed and Alexander, though not for Buddha, admittedly.

'We have more historical evidence for Christ than anyone from ancient times'

now you are just being ludicrous

I am an atheist, but I think it probably is the case that the man we now know as Jesus Christ existed and was a preacher in ancient Israel. I just don't believe he was the literal Son of God and came back to life after the Romans crucified him for being a troublemaker.

The Holocaust is a thoroughly documented event and only a fool or Nazi sympathiser could deny it happened.

Reverse it, put yourself in our shoes.

Bunch of people claim jesus muhammad krishna spiderman and co. did this and that.

All we have is their word and threats of hellfire and promises of eternal punishment for god's own mistakes.

Also we have examples from history before jesus that the same old same old was perpetuated with other names, standing for another god, or other gods.

Just because you want something to be true or people told you so, doesn't make it true.

I know there was a holocaust, my country (Bosnia) was the victim of the latest genocide in history, i take that topic very seriously but..

Whether or not i believe in the holocaust doesn't matter, even if we wouldn't have pictures and videos and mass tombs etc etc and people who witnesed it first hand STILL LIVING TODAY, the holocaust doesn'T claim that it can make wine out of water, walk on water, fly to heaven, heal the blind, make all our wishes come true if we drop on our knees and talk to the ceiling.

The holocaust is much easier to believe.

Ok, I'll humor you. Jesus could possibly have existed as a man who taught people stuff. But then a bunch of over-zealous nutjobs embellished the story, a REALLY LOT, wrote it in a book, killed anyone who disputed their story, and now, 2000+ years later, we are all expected to worship him as a deity. History, darling, look it up. Now what?

Please site these "credible scholars" who "know" Jesus existed. The existence of Jesus is still debated. It is not a fact, it is not "known". And most certainly, the Jesus of the Bible did NOT exist, as there is no record or evidence he ever walked this earth. There is quite a bit of evidence suggesting he is a combination of various other myths, rolled into one character.

There is NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE that Jesus was a real, live person.

ALSO: Really sick and wrong of you to compare a disbelief in a questionable nobody to the systematic murder of millions.

ETA: If you have evidence, show it. Otherwise, you're just talking out your butt.

Halfwit there is a world of first hand eyewitness accounts written on scraps of paper and after liberation books that would tear your heart out. For your Jesus there is absolutely none at all, there is however authenticated first hand evidence for Judas of Galilee a contemporary of Paul of Tarsus who used his and his sons activities as a model for his character Jesus.