Our story on a small cadre of authors challenging the existence of Jesus Christ drew almost 5,000 comments on Easter Sunday, with some upset that we did the story, others objecting to its publication on Easter, and plenty of others defending the article and the run date and debating the merits and implications of the debate.
Of course, most comments had nothing to do with our story, revolving instead around the debate about legitimacy of religion itself.
A sampling of the criticism:
Easter on CNN
You've gone too far.
While I am an advocate of spiritual exploration – by atheists to disprove or by the faithful to validate – running an article questioning the very core of a religious belief system on a holy day is indelicate, to say the least. Will you question that Muhammad received the word of God, running similar articles during Ramadan? Or on Yom Kippur, draw on conjecture to argue that the Book of Life is for fools?
This is not journalism. This sensationalist pander.
edeveryday
I would like to see if CNN would dare run a story saying that Muhammad was a "myth" on the Muslim' s holiest holidays and that Abraham was a "myth" on the Jewish holidays. Go ahead CNN and give it a try and see what happens.
rbsrs
Every Easter?...I mean why a negative story every Easter?? It has become a running joke.
ANGRY AT CNN!!!
CNN: IF YOU READ THIS GO TO HELL FOR YOUR ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY THIS EASTER SUNDAY!!!!
Many other readers took aim at the critics:
JHC
To those who are insulted by this article,
If your faith is so weak that it cannot stand up to being looked at from an objective, historical, evidence based perspective, then this article is the least of your problems.
nomdefaitour
It is ironic that so many christians are "offended" at a dialogue about religion sponsored by CNN instead of greeting the opportunity to express their views. Perhaps they are shamed that we all know they are surfing the web when they should be worshipping on Easter Sunday.
Others weighed in on the merits and upshot of the debate over Jesus' existence:
JBOO
I do not doubt that a man named Jesus existed, and that he probably did preach about God. But I believe he was no different than any cult leader today that preaches about their own religious beliefs and gains a small number of followers. The difference with Jesus is that Christianity was already more wide spread, and the general population was very uneducated and easily influenced by a great orator. Do I actually believe their is a God, and Jesus is his son? No. But I'm sure the man existed.
Keith
It is actually more reasonable than not to conclude that Jesus was an actual living person. Whether or not he was "the Christ" is the only worthwhile point of debate. Regardless, many of the teachings of Jesus are worthy of people to take to heart whether they are Christians or not. As an agnostic, I take those things that are wise from any and all religions, and leave behind those things that are destructive.
gimmeslack12
I don't care whether he really existed or not. It's his story that never happened, at least the son of god part and dieing and coming back to life stuff. What matters to Christians is that he is a support system that is able to take the blame for all the bad stuff in your life so that you can move past them and continue living.
I was thinking about it the other day, and I think Jesus really is a great thing, because it allows people to psychologically take pressure, grief or guilt and remove the effects of anxiety and pressure that those feelings create. On the flipside it possible allows someone to conjure up Love by themselves.
I think Jesus is a psychological whipping boy for all things that people don't have or can't (don't want to?) deal with. So I think atheists and non-Christians (heck, maybe Christians themselves) are missing the point about the importance of Jesus to some people.
The Twitter conversation over the article was mostly complimentary:
@JoshTheLink
Interesting debate from CNN's site about whether or not Jesus was a real person: https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/the-jesus-debate-man-vs-myth/?hpt=hp_c1
@CommonDescent
CNN asks: Did Jesus exist? https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/the-jesus-debate-man-vs-myth/?hpt=hp_c2 Honestly, this is a topic I don't know much about. I'd like to learn more.
@TTCNews
CNN interviews two Thoughtful Christian authors for this intriguing question–Craig A. Evans... http://fb.me/1idvhPxXD
I do not begrudge the religious preferences of the masses. My problem is in what they accuse us atheists and agnostics of....pushing our views.
If all religions worshipped in their respective houses, churches, temples, and mosques, and then when it was done simply went to work or school and left the religion where they practiced it, I would be fine with that and would never utter a word.
The problem is that every time I turn around there is a religious agenda in politics, religious desires to teach "creationism" in schools. Do all religions even understand why we do not allow this in government or schools? It is to avoid a theist state...where one religion has judicial and legislative authority over all. Once this happens we stop being the land of the free and we become...well...Iran.
Jesus the man was real. I do believe this. But he was just a man who spoke like Ghandi but had a little Charles Manson type charisma and gathered a following. The ruling government saw in killing him a "win win" situation...get rid of the dissenter and the chance to create the ultimate tool of control for the masses. Do not think it is sheer luck that the center of Christianity is in Rome...where the Roman government once ruled all. They created a money making pyramid scheme with the ultimate prize in jeopardy for not paying up and falling in line....doom of your "soul". We arrest most people for this type of fraud.
I am with the first couple there. Regardless of whether you are a Christian or not, to run that story on the religion's holy day was a deliberate and malicious insult to those that choose to follow it. A similar story about Muhammad during Ramadan or on Yom Kippur questioning the Book of Life would be considered an outrage. So why attack christianity every Easter unless you were trying to show the journalistic qualities of the National Enquirer. It is a sad day when you have to go to fox news to get real journalism.
Something created us, there is no disputing that. Now I don't necessarily buy into the man written biblical account, but no matter how we came to be, we came to be and something had to start the process. I guess if that "someone" is labeled God, then that's what I believe in.
The right combination of chemicals can form life. Scientists do it in laboratories. Should we worship scientists.
"Something created us, there is no disputing that."
Except, of course, that folks who actually understand science dispute it.
Yes, yes, worship scientists...by all means. Please!
BTW, scientists do not necessarily dispute that a force created us. We just avoid using the word create now that a bunch of neo-nazi religious buffoons are trying to put religion into our science classrooms. We do agree that there are natural laws of nature that work together to "create" life. What made these natural laws? Where did they come from? Dunno...could be god. But that god is outside of nature and not available to scrutiny by scientists.
The comments on this board and timing on CNN article are yet another proof how true Jesus was... 2,000 years ago people denied him, yet he said to his band of 50 that were prosecuted to death, that His word will be heard to every corner of the world.... and against all odds here we are – preaching in every corner of the world. Jesus said that this world will be against him and believers, that he will bring division among people, and here we are – division after division – some love him, some hate him... Yet we are not troubled, because we know, as Jesus said, trouble will come, but we must have no fear, for he took the fear away and gave us peace.
The historical Jesus is a great topic. Something that has not been discussed openly. Even an historical Moses is another great topic. Research shows both sides...if you do not use the bible...then historical there is thin evidence for an historical Jesus. Pilate and the Romans of that time were complusive record keepers, yet there is no record of a trial.
No historian of the day has find written proof of Jesus. There is a bit of a debate because one historian does mention a person that could be Jesus, but is not firm about it. The teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament is
what is important. The situation today is many people want to have a "personal" relationship with Jesus, more than
just live out his teachings according to the bible. Bring light to the matter by investigating and having historians, scientist
look at the question of historical bible figures and other religions while difficult because we live in a "see, I'm right
mentality" is something that may provides the truth that will set us free. Live out the truths, the basic good truths of
any religion and forget about how this bible person looked, what he wore...but what he or she taught.
That was probably the best comment i've seen. but in the end of it you said jesus took the fear. I don't think jesus takes away the negative side of life until you die.
The question is was Jesus a folk hero like Davie Crockett, who actually lived and could leap the Ohio River and ride a streak of lightning, or was he pure folklore like Paul Bunyan.
Either explanation seems possible when you look at how religions evolve and how Christianity apparently ripped much its folklore from previous pagan religions.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg&w=640&h=360]
I want to see His or Her's birth certificate. You can't believe everything you read or every drawing rendition you see.
I would say I wish I had seen this Sunday so I could weigh in on the myth. But I was busy doing things for and with the Family to spend it surfing the web. That was more important to me.
i didnt read this article but why is it that in this country that suppose to be a Christian country that the very core of witch the country was founded on is always being attacked why dont we or the news media attack other faith's well i will tell you why those faith's do not attack the freedom of will of the poeple in charge of these news corp but it's okay because Jesus said yal would he said in the BIBLE that the people would attack us and kill us which i am refering to true hard core Christians but its okay we still love yal and will continue to pray for you
Lord have mercy, your ignorance is showing.
WHO said this is supposed to be a Christian country. The founding fathers very deliberately created a separation of church and state to specifically prevent anybody from imposing a state religion on Americans.
We're not a Christian country, we're a country with a Christian majority. Big difference. We're not a Christian theocracy, we are a country where your right to practice Christianity (or any other belief) is protected by secular law. And that law protects Christians from persecution, but not from criticism.
This is not a "christian country". It is a non-theist government, freedom of ALL religions country. Thinking like yours is why we must always remain vigilant that religion does not take over.
When I see posts like Jeff's I wonder where things went wrong? Do the fundiots skip civics/government classes in school? Do they simply choose to ignore they were taught?
I don't think one's objection to bigotry is a show of lack of faith. It's someone who is being abused by another person who doesn't see a problem with indirect acts of hatred toward someone for what he or she believes by attacking the criteria of one's faith to fit one's own preferences. CNN has aimed it's questions and challenges toward Christianity in general, for a while now. On the other hand, Jesus said it'd be like this. I'll still be Christian no matter how someone may try to pervert, twist, or belittle Jesus Christ. He is the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. The selfishness acts of a mortal sinner will never change that.
Maybe next year we can have one debating whether 2 million jews died in concentration camps in Germany!
Faiir is fair.....right?
Why do christians think they are being treated "unfairly" just because question their beliefs? And why then do they del the need to say it's "only fair" that they then get a shot at questioning if the holocaust occurred, or if Muhammad lived? Grow the f@#$ up! Show some emotional maturity.
The differance there is that happened. Jesus didn't........
There is no debate. Your comparison is without merit. Try again.
How can you even begin to compare the two?
You can visit Germany and see the death camps with your own eyes. You can look a the photos of the piles of bodies which the Nazis made.
Go ahead; there's far more evidence for the Holocaust. And it was six million.
To believe that anything composed of matter down to the structure of a cell came into existence in and of itself, all by itself, is absolutely impossible. "Science" has proven that the universe is "wearing out". Everything that is composed of matter IS wearing out. That means it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for sheer matter to create ITSELF....including the so-called "explosion". The law of "cause" alone as dictated by the scientific community DEMANDS an Intelligent Eternal Source. That means someone who has no beginning and who certainly has no end who is ALL powerful and ALL knowing. GOD IS....your unbelief in that fact makes no difference at all because we're all STILL going to die and stand before him.
A little education is dangerous.
But scientist don't just give up and say "god did it".... moron!
@nomdefaitour, isn't though. But some good old fashioned common sense goes a very long way.
Common sense is the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.
If you accept the "first cause" argument for the existence of God, but then make an exception for God to exist without a cause, you might just as well make that exception for the universe. BTW, the universe is not wearing out. New stars are being born all the time.
People like you are why we are 25th in the world for science comprehension.
how do you see a creation, and use it to justify that it is the word of a particular deity? it's as if you are saying that the complexity of "creation", therefore Jesus died for your sins. crappy logic.
@Tom Paine, our existence proves the existence of God. God has no beginning. He has no end but we do. (our life here on earth that is) Where God came from? Why do you require the answer to this question before you make a decision to believe on him before your life ends?
The Universe is wearing out? So if God created the Universe, does that mean that God is wearing out? You make no sense. The Universe is no more wearing out than God is becoming UN-eternal.....
I think he means entropy.
The Bible says that God makes fools of the wise. Scientific advances in quantum mechanics prove this to be true. Everyone knows something cam't be both a particle and a wave at the same time. But physicists assure us that light is exactly that. So it s better to approach the profound questions of existence with great humility. We know almost nothing, and the realization of that s the beginning of wisdom and of religion.
When I see posts like this I wonder why folks who purposefully choose to be ignorant about science come onto the internet message boards and demonstrate that ignorance. You denigrate what you clearly do not understand.
Seriously – do any of you fundiots (fundamentalist îdiots) ever crack open a science journal?
@ILoveJesus – Part of the difficulty is that there are many definitions of God. I take it that by "God" you mean the God of Abraham. As far as I'm concerned, my existence does not prove that the God of Abraham exists. I think my existence and the existence of every I can perceive is proof of some kind of power and/or organizing principle, but to me it's more akin to the Tao than anything in the Bible.
And just so we remain somewhat on topic: I do think that Jesus of Nazareth probably existed, and was probably killed for his transgressions against the state. But I don't believe he was the embodiment of God, except to the extent that everything is, and I don't believe in his resurrection, and I don't believe he died for my sins. I also believe in what Max von Sydow's character in "Hannah and her Sisters" said: "If Jesus came back and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up."
HA!!! These whiners can't deal with a little criticism. Anyone with a analytical eye has concluded there is not god, christ and it's all lies. For those who need this god thing in their lives, I say: Grow up and deal with the simple reality.
Um, "there is no god" I wish I could type better!
the debate on easter was tasteless for cnn to do. and im seeing alot more of that on here in the last few years. but remember that the media has no emotions. theyre out there to make a story. and on here? what? a debate from most not educated enough. i will stand by my God and Jesus and defend them the best i can even though ive never went to school. but if someone doesnt want to hear about it. then i shake the dust off my feet and wont argue the point. that doesnt mean i cant work along side them thou.
And you are free to get your news information from other sources.
Or, don't you believe in free markets?
Do you feel that your god and Jesus need your defense?
Jesus was real!
Jesus was historical. It is proved by science of history!
Scientifically seen, the accounts of the Bible of Jesus and the apostles are not as trustworthy as accounts from outside the Bible and the Church. The writers of the Bible were Christians and could have been tempted to invent stories about Jesus and the Church. However, there are accounts of Jesus and the Church from outside the Church, even drafted by enemies of Christ and the Church. Why should an enemy of Christ and the Church invent stories about Christ and the Church, which would promote the faith, which he hates. Hence, the texts below are very trustworthy, because they are drafted by enemies of Christ.
Firstly, there was a very famous historian of the Roman Empire, which lived in the first century after Christ (AD 56 – AD 117), that means extremly near-term to the events, which had came to pass in Palestine. He, Tacitus, was a pagan, which had no reason at all to promote Christianity and to tell us lies about Jesus. We can be sure that it was historical, what he wrote about Jesus, because he was an enemy of Jesus:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superst-ition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multi-tude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".
This passage is a clear evidence for the historicity of Christ Jesus.
Secondly, there was a famous Jewish historian of the first century, who gives acount of Jesus Christ. Jews have no reason to promote Christianity and thus we can be sure that Flavius Josephus told us the truth about Jesus:
"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."
A Jew confirms the historical reality of Jesus, the founder of Christianity. That is very great!
There is no credible evidence for the existence of jesus, moses, abraham. But there is plenty of evidence for the creation of god by man.
If man created God then who created man???
@Bob "If man created God then who created man???" Seriously? Are you that stupid?
For those who deny the existence of Jesus, I suppose we can deny the existence of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle–men who lived approximately 400 years before Christ. Where are Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle's graves? There is no proof they lived then is there?
Of course Christ lived. His life and teachings were recorded by the Apostles.
And of course Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle lived. Their lives and teachings were recorded by their students.
For those who deny the life of Christ, they must also deny the men who came before Him. Otherwise, they have presented an opinion, not a solid argument.
Do you think Paul Bunyan existed?
However, the words attributed to Socrates, Plato, etc. stand alone regardless of whether or not THEY existed in life. The entire concept of Christianity depends upon the virgin birth, life, crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus. If he is not a TRUE historical person, then the entire belief system falters. It seems that would certainly place more burden of proof on the Jesus believers than is required of the followers of Socrates, etc.
Jesus was real!
There are accounts of Jesus and Christianity outside the Bible and the Christian Church. Scientifically seen, accounts of Jesus and the faith from outside the Bible and the Church are more valueable, because Christian writers could always be tempted to invent stories about Jesus and the apostles, in order to promote the Christian faith.
The text bellow is a conversation between two enemies of Christ and his Church. They had no reason at all to invent stories, which could promote the faith. Hence, the text below is extremly valueable, because enemies (Trajan and Pliny) of Christ tell of the Christian Church. The text below is a clear proof for the historicity of Christianity. Regard how close to Jesus' and the apostles lifetime the text emerged.
Once, an officer, Pliny the Younger (reign 111-113 AD), of the Roman Empire had a conversation with his emperor Trajan (reign 98-117 AD):
"It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.
Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.
Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous docu-ment was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ–none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do–these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.
They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive supersti-tion.
I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both se-xes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this supersti-tion has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multi-tude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.
Emperor Trajan to Pliny
You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it–that is, by worshiping our gods–even though he was under suspi-cion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age."
This passage is a clear evidence for historicity of Christianity. Consider it is from the beginning of the second century. Hence, Christianity could not be invented by any impostor later, but it was oviously a real thing.
Again....these text were written 60 to 80 years after the supposed death of Jesus. No first hand accounts.
If man create gods who created Man?!?!?!
First hand accounts? read up on how history is written starting from ancient of days.
There were no texts written about Alexander the great until after 400 years after his passing that does not invalidate the historical accounts written about him?
Whenever I think about the Big Bang and the few seconds just past that event when everything was accelerating at exactly the right rate to allow sub atomic particles to coalesce and create hydrogen... to know that if the 15th decimal place in the rate of expansion was off by just 1 that the universe would not have formed... that's enough evidence to me to demonstrate we are not jjust a coincidence of colliding branes (theorized to have caused the Big Bang). The rate of expansion, perfect value, any other value, no hydrogen, no stars, no super novae, no heavier elements, no earth, no life. Just one little ol number in the 15th decimal place... I'm convinced. I'm not hitting anyone over the head with scripture, that's useless. Just think about what I've written above and it is ALL demonstrated by Science. Obviously I'm drawing my own conclusion but that's some pretty startling evidence. Once you establish God it's easy to find a need for a Jesus character. I'll just leave it at God and the science behind the Big Bang for now.
This sounds like pseudo-science being passed off as science.
"Once you establish God it's easy to find a need for a Jesus character"
Well, go for it. How does the concept of a "creator" logically lead one to Jesus?
Mark, could you post a few citations to peer-reviewed science journals supporting your contention?
John3:16
John 14:6
Rom 14:11
Dumb 13:13
Atheists have just as much of an agenda as Cristians and religious people. The problem is people, not religion or ideaology.
What's wrong with an agenda per se? My agenda is to empower my fellow humans to live fully actualized lives without fear and contribute to the progress of humanity.
I support that, I'm simply stating that Atheists like to seperate themselves from deeply religious people. But really, they have the same goal. Influencing humanity to an ideaoology and a practice.
Actually a lot simply don't want people like you forcing their beliefs on others, an especially not on their children while in public schools.
We atheist just want you thiests to shut up and leave us alone!. That if anything is our agenda!
batman: not all atheists think exactly alike just as not all christians think exactly alike. there are devout in each camp
The gods of all organized religions, if true, would all be horribly unjust and evil deities to send billions of people to eternal suffering for choosing the wrong one or being born in the wrong place. Looking at organized religion objectively, they are myths from iron age societies that were trying to explain the world, and there is virtually no chance any one is truth.
Rationally speaking if there is a just god and an afterlife, you will be judged on how you live your life. Rejecting reason and deluding yourself in blind faith does not help your case.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4or90cmyhk&w=640&h=360]
You are making the assumption that we as a society have the absolute knowledge or a complete understanding of God and the laws of the Universe. We have free will so we can make decisions for ourselves. All the wrong and evil in the world are caused by us. Our lack of understanding of God and ourselves is not a reason to discredit spirituality
I am not discrediting spirituality, I am saying there is virtually no chance any one organized religion is truth.
I agree with you 100%, there is no one true religion.
batman: you are right. that is no reason to discredit spirituality. but, it is reason to be very wary of anyone who says they have the Truth (with a capital T)