Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

Six reasons Christianity is a false faith, based on a false god


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 13, 2012 7:02:43 PM PST
Celsus says:
(This is a continuation of the maxed-out thread "Five reasons why Christianity is a false faith". There are actually six reasons, so I have altered the new title accordingly.)

Six reasons why Christianity is a false faith, based on a false god:

1) Prayer to Biblegod doesn't work. This is the conclusion from numerous studies conducted in the Western world on the subject of prayer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/ns/health-heart_health/t/power-prayer-flunks-unusual-test/

http://www.dimaggio.org/Eye-Openers/prayer_does_not_work.htm

2) The widespread lack of agreement among Christians on basic aspects of the faith suggests their faith is not divinely inspired (a genuine God would have been capable of communicating his truth effectively);

3) The sordid and violent history of Christendom suggests the faith does not work;

4) The mass of evidence showing that early Christians were prolific liars and forgers on behalf of their messiah;

5) The mass of evidence showing the Resurrection is not a genuine historical event, but rather, the product of delusions, deceptions and wishful thinking.

6) The hundreds of contradictions, errors and logical impossibilities found in the New Testament.

These are the six points that convinced me Christianity is false, but I would be interested in hearing what others think. What are the main points that convinced you Christianity is a con?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 7:10:53 PM PST
I would add as #7: the mass of evidence showing that major tenets of Christianity have been found to be untrue, including but certainly not limited to: 1) the age of the earth, 2) the shape of the earth, 3) structure of the universe, 4) the genealogy of mankind, 5) the claim of a worldwide flood, 6) the claim that the earth is at the center of the universe, and many more.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 7:13:26 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 14, 2012 10:32:07 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 7:16:32 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 2:44:50 PM PST
Celsus, Indeed the genuine God did reveal His manifold Wisdom effectively through His Church on Peter the rock, (Luke 10:16, John 21:17, Ephesians 3:10, Matthew 16:16-19) and 265 successors to Peter later, not even satan has been able to prevail against it as Jesus our Great God and Saviour promised. Peace always in the Most Precious Blood of Christ

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 8:09:46 PM PST
Celsus says:
Jettos

>>I would add as #7: the mass of evidence showing that major tenets of Christianity have been found to be untrue, including but certainly not limited to: 1) the age of the earth, 2) the shape of the earth, 3) structure of the universe, 4) the genealogy of mankind, 5) the claim of a worldwide flood, 6) the claim that the earth is at the center of the universe, and many more.<<

I agree, these apply to the bulk of fundamentalist and evangelical churches, the adherents of which tend to believe everything written in the Bible. But such teachings are mostly found in the Old Testament, and there are some Christian groups today who have realized such ideas are clearly indefensible, so take a more liberal approach to certain inconvenient OT texts.

Posted on Dec 13, 2012 8:21:18 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 16, 2012 3:10:59 AM PST
Celsus says:
In the previous thread, Steve PL posted the following:

>>So, you think that all the Christians throughout history were "scoundrels, liars, and fraudsters"? I would hope that is not the case, for your reputation's sake.<<

You misrepresent my argument. I never said this applies to ALL Christians, only some of those responsible for the origin and propagation of the faith. And we know this is true, given many admissions by early Christians and the many fraudulent and spurious Christian works and interpolations that arose in the first few centuries.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 12:13:03 AM PST
Jim Padilla says:
1) Prayers I have made to God have been successful.
2) There's actually a huge number of things Christians agree on. We agree on the big things as a general consensus but some of us debate the small stuff. I'm speaking generally, but so are you.
3) The violent effects of Communist Atheists in the single 20th century show that lack of faith is even worse. (Since we're going to play "correlation=causation" games)
4) This is too general of a point, besides, nothing can be worse than the Atheists of the 20th century.
5) I would like to see such evidence. How about the prophesies that were fulfilled? Who knew Israel would get their land back in the 1940's? I'll tell you: the Bible prophesied it.
6) Again, very general. Also, you may want to read things in context. It really clears things up. If there is anything I really hate it's the fact that any non-Christian is suddenly a Bible scholar as soon as they want to put down Christianity.

Posted on Dec 14, 2012 1:20:57 AM PST
mdb says:
I love your mindset. I have just one question.Even though we christians are so deluded in our thoughts,matbe you could explain something else to me.
What is so wrong with people who believe killing is wrong,stealing is wrong, well you might know the rest.Imagine how awful the world would be if everyone else was ignoring the scientific evidence like us.Striving to be better everyday,living by 10 simple laws. I will never understand how the theory of evolution is accepted,but religion can not be accepted even as a theory.Turn your energy to the real problems of the world nieche.

Posted on Dec 14, 2012 7:00:08 AM PST
StevePL says: Moses recognized God was talking to him, as all Christians do.

That's funny, because as a Christian for over 30 years, I never once heard a peep from the big man upstairs. Not one peep. All around me were people that were constantly talking the church talk of how god speaks to them and how god is leading them. It's really sad when you know each and every one of them is a liar, in the worst way. They hide behind their invisible superman fan club and pretend to be closer to him than everyone else, but in reality they know that they're really just trying to pass on the big lie.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:06:16 AM PST
The Bible never speaks directly to the age of the earth. That is something man has attributed to Biblical scripture and is incorrect. It does however speak to the history of man, since writing was only "invented" some 10,000 years ago is it odd or strange that that would be time that written accounts have shown up. Man has always wanted and tried to be "God" himself, it hasn't worked, doesn't work and will never work. Amen!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:08:34 AM PST
Emmanuel, God with us. You will not hear or find God's presence without the Holy Spirit. Pray for wisdom and knowledge but be ready for the answer!!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:12:54 AM PST
Celsus says: But such teachings are mostly found in the Old Testament, and there are some Christian groups today who have realized such ideas are clearly indefensible, so take a more liberal approach to certain inconvenient OT texts.

JC: Absolutely; one of so many examples of your #2 ("lack of agreement.")

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:13:49 AM PST
More church talk...I had that there holy spirit as much as the next clown. Not even a peep, ever.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:22:01 AM PST
Jim Padilla says: 2) There's actually a huge number of things Christians agree on. We agree on the big things as a general consensus but some of us debate the small stuff.

JC: Not so, Jim.

There are several "big things" that Christians disagree on.

Among other things, so many Christians believe that the requirements for heaven/eternal life exclude other Christians.

Many believe that "faith alone" is sufficient, others insist that "good works" are also required. Many Catholics believe that those who do not belong to "the one true church" will not be saved, many Protestants believe that Catholics will burn because they "worship idols" (Jimmy Swaggart, e.g., once said that Mother Theresa would not see eternal life.) Some believe you must be baptized, must "eat the body and drink the blood of Christ," and a whole host of others.

We see these arguments constantly in these forums.

Therefore, for so many Christians, other otherwise devout Christians will end up in the same place- Hell (and they disagree on what that exactly entails) along with Hitler, Stalin, and us non-believers.

That is anything but "small stuff," wouldn't you agree?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:28:44 AM PST
mdb says: What is so wrong with people who believe killing is wrong,stealing is wrong, well you might know the rest.

JC: I can't speak for other non-believers, but so many of us are secular humanists. We also believe that "killing... [and] stealing" is wrong, along with a long list of other ethical tenets that we hold just as dearly as theists do.

In fact, I believe that it speaks to my moral code that I do not require the fear of "eternal punishment" to hold to these values.

Although there are some differences (as there are among theists), one of the main set of differences between believers and non-believers are directly or indirectly in regard to the "morality" of "worshipping god."

Posted on Dec 14, 2012 7:31:54 AM PST
Curlyfry says:

oh come on now, that last thread was cut off way too short..:P

In the "Five reasons.." thread, there were about 200 contributors total..some of the more active contributors (at the end) being: Nearenough, Skriker, J. Green, Allan, Carol J. Reese, sahandsdal, Lois, StevePL, Brian Hayes, brunumb, Joseph L. Shumpert, Celsus, Birutegal...i know i'm forgetting ppl..

Patrick Collins, Nancy Davidson, Katydid, and a few others joined in at the end there, as well...many popped in and out..during the course of the thread..

It got a little bit crazy in the end there..

What started off as a thread about '5 reasons why Christianity is false' went a bit haywire...went into a plethora of topics..even about politics and sensitive topics like homosexuality and debatable topics concerning the dating of the DSS, and at the end there, it even went into the possibility of extraterrestrial life.. But the overarching theme seemed to be about the 'proof' for God (Yahweh).. is it all just special pleading in the end, based on one's upbringing and one's culture, or is there really something to be said? Is empirical proof for Christ required before one can be certain of His goodness and reality? To get everyone on the same page, just skim the last 15 or so pages of this thread:

http://www.amazon.com/forum/christianity/ref=cm_cd_pg_oldest?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx77WQHU8YS50Z&cdPage=1&cdSort=newest&cdThread=Tx2NCWXDZD8IPYC

let's keep talking...:)

*EDIT: ignore this thead; Celsus started a new one here: http://www.amazon.com/forum/christianity/ref=cm_cd_fp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx77WQHU8YS50Z&cdThread=Tx236XLOU34BUFV

MAy you Own words get some of yours, Read this. Romans 12:9, "Love must be without HYPOCRISTY. Does NON_CHRISTIAN KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

Without hypocrisy (505) (anuopkritos from a = negative prefix meaning without + hupokrinomai [see below] = to pretend, this Greek verb being a combination of hupó = under, indicating secrecy + krino = to judge) is literally without play acting, without playing the part or without hypocrisy.

Anuopkritos - 8x in the NT - Ro 12:9; 2Co 6:6; 1Ti 1:5; 2Ti 1:5-note; Jas 3:17; 1Pe 1:22-note. Notice that anupokritos is used as an adjective to modify love (2Co 6:6; 1Pe 1:22-note), faith (1Ti 1:5; 2Ti 1:5-note), and wisdom (James 3:17).

Anupokritos describes that which is unhypocritical, genuine (faith, love and wisdom in Scripture) and without show or pretense (pretense = a claim made or implied and especially one not supported by fact).

W E Vine has this note on the related root word explaining that a hypocrite (hupokrites) was...

"a stage-actor; it was a custom for Greek and Roman actors to speak in large masks with mechanical devices for augmenting the force of the voice; hence the word became used metaphorically of a dissembler, a hypocrite." (Vine, W E: Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. 1996. Nelson)

A hypocrite is therefore an actor. Timothy's faith was not an act but was completely genuine, unhypocritical and without pretense or deceit.

Marvin Vincent explains that the related word hypocrite (hupokrites) is...

From hupokrino, to separate gradually; so of separating the truth from a mass of falsehood, and thence to subject to inquiry, and, as a result of this, to expound or interpret what is elicited. Then, to reply to inquiry, and so to answer on the stage, to speak in dialogue, to act. From this the transition is easy to assuming, feigning, playing a part. The hypocrite is, therefore, etymologically, an actor. (Greek Word Study)

In summary anuopkritos means "without a mask" and thus unfeigned, sincere, genuine, free from deceit, authentic, undisguised, without pretense or sham, "without dissimulation" (KJV) (dissimulate = hide under a false appearance). As alluded to above, in classical Greek drama, the hypokrites was the play actor who projected an image but hid his true identity behind a mask. Metaphorically and morally, a hypokrites (a hypocrite) is anyone who pretends to be something he is not.

The related root word hupokrisis (word study) meant stage playing, acting (histrionics) and hence came to mean acting a part in life, etc. The Christian's loving behavior should not be acting a part or wearing a mask, but an authentic expression of a renewed mind and a transformed life (Ro 12:2-note). A believer's love must be completely sincere, without hypocrisy, play-acting or ulterior motive.

The NIV renders it as ""Love must be sincere." Our English word sincere comes from the Latin word sincerus, which means "without wax" which stems from a practice of the early Roman merchants who set their earthen and porcelain jars out for sale. If a crack appeared in one, they would fill it with wax the same color as the jar, so a buyer would not be aware that it was cracked. But astute buyers learned to hold these jars out in the sun, and if the jar was cracked, the wax would melt and the crack would be revealed. So the honest merchants would test their wares this way and mark them sincerus -- "without wax". The word literally reflects what the Greek says here, "Let love be without hypocrisy."

Hypocrisy is exceeded in evil only by unbelief. The consummate hypocrite in Scripture, Judas, was also the consummate egoist. He feigned devotion to Jesus to achieve his own selfish purposes. His hypocrisy was unmasked and his self-centeredness was made evident when he betrayed Jesus for the thirty pieces of silver.

Love with hypocrisy is an oxymoron and is not real love at all. Sadly much of what masquerades as "love" in the Christian community is laced with the arsenic of hypocrisy.

A believer's love should not wear a mask, but should be genuine, sincere, and unaffected. Words are cheap...true love is costly...it costs death to self. Don't deceive with words but love with action. In a world where much that looks real is not real, love in the family must be the real thing expressed in action, not merely in words (1Jn 3:18)

Christian love is to be shown purely and sincerely, without self-centeredness or guile. However it is not love which simply manifests itself in affection for everything -- that is sentiment. Nor is it love which cuts everyone off in an attempt to be rigidly faithful to the truth and is harsh, unyielding, and difficult -- that isn't love. Love is a balance. We are living in an age in which this is the very spirit of the times -- to project an image, to pretend you are something that you are not. All the world system holds that up before us, through the media of television, internet, movies, music, advertisements, etc. Our society actively encourages to be something we are not. Thus even believers can deceive themselves into thinking they have love for people they neglect. Paul tells us that we must get beyond pretense-we must sincerely love.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:36:11 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 7:37:30 AM PST
Donna E. Moore says: The Bible never speaks directly to the age of the earth. That is something man has attributed to Biblical scripture and is incorrect.

JC: Donna, that is by far not the only example of how "man... is incorrect."

At some point in time, all of Christiandom believed such things as 1) the earth was flat, 2) the sky was a "firmament," with the stars planted into it, and "heaven" lay just beyond, 3) the sun, planets, and stars revolved around the earth, and a whole host of other things which have forced Christians to alter their beliefs in major ways.

How can you be sure that there are not current beliefs which have been "attributed to Biblical scripture and [are] incorrect"?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 7:57:46 AM PST
JC, there was a time when all humanity believed the earth was flat, the sky was something other than what we see it as today, stars were not known about, sun, planets and stars revolved around the earth.....so what is your point?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 8:14:01 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 8:14:39 AM PST
Skriker says:
Being a good person without the divine threat of Hell or the divine promise of Heaven is more valid in my opinion. If you are in a faith that threatens and promises like that are you really being good because you truly want to be good and not just to avoid torment or to gain a reward in some way?

The golden rule was around for millennia before Christianity added it into the equation. Aside from those tenets that have to do with worshipping God, it covers the commandments just fine. You don't murder, steal, covet your neighbors wife or any of those other bad things because you wouldn't want others to do such things to you. It is that simple. It doesn't need some divine power behind it to make it happen. All it takes is common sense and the desire to be a better person.

Of course the fact that the world still exists and functions on a daily basis makes it clear that the attitude that some Christians have that non-Christians can't be good people is a fallacy. It is still a choice people make every day with or without a religion behind it.

Posted on Dec 14, 2012 8:37:28 AM PST
I have a few addendums:

Its "holy" book reeks misogyny from every page.
It created dishonest apologists like WLC, Alvin Plantinga and John Lennox.
It encourages blind faith. This sentiment is reiterated by many other theologians, like Aquinas and Martin Luther.
It is rife with inherent contradictions (which would not happen if a perfect being actually authored or inspired it).

Posted on Dec 14, 2012 9:06:54 AM PST
Well I am sure that last thread set a record for the most contributions in the least time on Amazon...perhaps that is a good thing! I was late to join it so missed much of the "fun" and provocation!

Many of you will no doubt have heard of Christopher Hitchins - he can tend to be pompous but he is certainly one of the most impressive orators on the debate we have participated in recently on these pages.

Here are a couple of short ones - the first in which he talks about the timing of the intervention of God some 3000 years ago is rather humerous but at the same time gives pause for thought!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_LA47fuWc8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY32g1bfpBg

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 11:15:08 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 11:22:31 AM PST
Celsus says:
Jim

>>1) Prayers I have made to God have been successful.<<

How many have not?

>>2) There's actually a huge number of things Christians agree on. We agree on the big things as a general consensus but some of us debate the small stuff. I'm speaking generally, but so are you.<<

Much of the stuff Christians debate is not small, such as:

: was Jesus God?
: Is there a Trinity?
: Does Jesus become the bread and wine at communion?
: Is the `Toronto Blessing' from God or Satan?
: Is the Pope the Antichrist?
: Does baptism require full immersion, or is sprinkling sufficient?
: Should babies be baptized?
: Are we predestined to be believers/ nonbelievers?
: Is the Bible inerrant?
: Should the Bible be taken literally?
: Are Mormons and Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses also Christians?
: Was Martin Luther a great man of God, or a sociopathic anti-Semite?

>>3) The violent effects of Communist Atheists in the single 20th century show that lack of faith is even worse. (Since we're going to play "correlation=causation" games)<<

Communists killed people, not based on their atheism, but based on their political aims. Atheism does not have a creed, and only one precept: a disbelief in gods. You are likely atheistic in respect to millions of other gods. Does your disbelief in all those gods inspire you to go on killing rampages? I suspect not. The only difference between you and an atheist is that the atheist believes in one less god than you.

I will cover your other points in a later post.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 12:07:57 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 12:47:23 PM PST
Celsus says:
Jim

>>4) This is too general of a point, besides, nothing can be worse than the Atheists of the 20th century.<<

We are talking about Christianity and what makes it a false faith, based on a false god. Whatever atheists might have done is irrelevant.
As for the point being too general, I agree. Which is why, at the beginning of the earlier thread, I presented evidence showing that indeed early Christians were prolific liars and forgers on behalf of their messiah. So I will now present the same evidence again, for your interest. Then in following posts I will show why the resurrection tale and the Gospels are unreliable.

Early Christians were proficient Liars for Christ. It never bothered Paul, Matthew, Eusebius, Luther, and many others, who freely admitted, even boasted of their proclivity for lying on behalf of the Gospel (quotes provided at end of this message). In fact, liars and forgers were responsible for much of the works now known as the New Testament. Among these `holy' works, we find a vast number of forgeries and interpolations. These include the entire epistle of 2 Peter, the Pastoral Epistles, the last 12 verses in Mark (there are four different versions), the story of the adulterous woman in John 8, the entire chapter of John 21, and the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7-8, among others. Then there are the numerous apocryphal Gospels, such as those of Thomas, Peter, Mary, Judas etc., and apocryphal epistles like the 15 epistles of Ignatius, 2 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas and dozens more spurious works concocted fraudulently in the names of earlier church leaders. The practice of interpolating and forging Christian scripture was clearly endemic, as evidenced not only by the plethora of such works, but also the admissions of leading figures such as Origen, Celsus, Cardinal John Henry Newman, Victor Tununensis, and Bishop Dionysius, as follows:

Cardinal John Henry Newman admitted, in his book Apology for His Life: "The Greek fathers thought that when the cause was just, an untruth need not be a lie."

Victor Tununensis, an African bishop of the sixth century wrote: "The holy Gospels, being written by illiterate Evangelists, were censured and corrected."

A late second century church father, Bishop Dionysius, complained in his epistle to the Romans that his own writings were "falsified by apostles of the Devil, taking away some things and adding others, for whom a woe is in store. It is understandable then that some have also attempted to adulterate the Lord's writings...."

Origen, writing it the mid third century, said in his Commentary on St Matthew: "The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please". (15:14)

Celsus confirmed the above when he wrote: "Some believers, as though from a drinking bout, go so far as to alter the original text of the gospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to enable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism" (Against Celsus 2.27)

Here are the quotes I promised from Paul, Eusebius etc:

Paul freely admitted lying about who he was for the sake of the Gospel, when he said: "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you". 1 Cor 9: 20-23.

Eusebius said: "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
(Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2).

John Chrysostom, the great 5th century preacher, said: "Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ... And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
(Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1).

Martin Luther said: "What harm would it do if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them"
(Cited by Luther's secretary in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel
Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, Vol. 1).

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 12:21:08 PM PST
Celsus says:
Jim

In relation to my claim the resurrection is not a reliable historical event, you said

>> I would like to see such evidence. How about the prophesies that were fulfilled?<<

There are no prophecies in the OT in respect to the resurrection. Yahweh was strangely silent on the issue, which is one reason why the Jews reject Jesus as their messiah. As for the evidence against it having occurred, here is a brief summary. I am happy to expand upon any of the 15 points given.

1) There are numerous natural explanations for the resurrection, any of which is more likely than a miracle having occurred. It may have been the product of hallucination, delusion, wishful thinking, deception, faulty memories, a con perpetrated by frustrated apostles, a staged trick, an evolving myth, a work of fiction......the list of natural possibilities is very long.

2) Some Gnostics, who were present during the formation of the Christian faith, denied that Christ rose from the dead in physical form.

3) Early Christians such as Paul indicate that Christ's resurrection body was spiritual, not physical. Paul's only experience of Christ was through visions and dreams, and his epistles suggest the other disciples also experienced the risen Christ in this way. It was only later, with the advent of the Gospels, that the notion of a physical resurrection came to the fore.

4) The death of Elvis Presley, followed by thousands of Elvis sightings, reveals how easily a resurrection myth may have arisen.

5) The Gospels include two post-resurrection accounts where the disciples did not recognize Jesus, and only on later reflection decided it must have been Jesus they spoke to. Thus the resurrection tale may have begun as a case of mistaken identity.

6) Christians forged, altered and interpolated numerous documents to the glory of God. Such forgeries include well known passages in the Gospels, the Pastoral Epistles of Paul, 2 Peter, Ignatius and numerous other apocryphal works, thereby casting doubt on all works contrived at that time, including the Gospels.

7) The first Gospel (Mark) failed to provide any post-resurrection details (the most important part of the story) resulting in four forged endings in an attempt by Christians to correct this problem. It was not until decades later that Matt, Luke and John fleshed out the tale to provide post-resurrection details, lending credence to the evolving myth hypothesis.

8) There are numerous variations in the Gospel accounts concerning post resurrection events, some of which are contradictory.

9) The Gospels are comprised of anonymous hearsay composed 40+ years after the event, penned by Greek scribes (not illiterate, Aramaic speaking disciples). In other words, they are about as far from reliable testimony as you can get.

10) The gullible, ignorant and superstitious people of that day provided fertile ground for a resurrection myth to take hold.

11) Every reference by Paul says Christ was `buried' ( Romans 6:4; 1 Corinthians 15:4; Colossians 2:12). But Christ wasn't buried. He was put in a tomb, according to the Gospel tales. And strangely, the word `tomb' does not appear in any of the epistles. One might even conclude, based on this strange fact, that the original tale incorporated a standard burial, as was the general custom of the day, and that the idea of a tomb was added later, probably as a literary device.

12) No one knows where the genuine tomb is located. Given the fervor with which early Christians regarded holy relics, the lack of knowledge concerning the location of the tomb - the most sacred relic of all - indicates it is highly likely there was no such tomb.

13) No one knows when the resurrection occurred - not even the correct year. We know the death dates for many famous people from Jesus' time and before (Cleopatra, Mark Antony, Caesar, Alexander the Great) but no Christian bothered to remember or commemorate the most important event in the history of the world. We do not know even the year when Jesus died, despite the event supposedly being heralded by an earthquake, three hours of darkness at mid-day and disinterred saints strolling through Jerusalem. This makes no sense if the resurrection was a genuine historical event, but perfect sense if it is not.

14) Matthew tells of a multitude of "saints" who crawled out of their graves at the time of Jesus' resurrection and wandered around, being "seen by many", but fails to elaborate further. This is a verse (27:51-52) that Christians like to pretend doesn't exist, since it demonstrates that one of their primary source Gospel writers was prone to delivering up amazing whoppers. Matt and Luke further claim the sun was darkened for three hours at the crucifixion, another whopper totally uncorroborated by historians (or anyone else) at that time.

15) The gospel accounts of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus contain several incidents and observations that make no sense, given the time and place they are supposed to have occurred. Among these are: having Jesus examined before a magistrate before his trial, which was expressly forbidden by the Jewish laws of the time; being tried before the Sanhedrim, who did not have jurisdiction over capital offenses after 30 AD; being tried subsequently before Pilate, which he would not have been subjected to if he already had an original trial before the Sanhedrim; having his trial at the palace of the high priest, in which it would have been illegal to hold a trial; being charged with blasphemy, which was not a capital offense and would not have resulted in his execution (*); being questioned by the Sanhedrin, who did not in real life question prisoners; having his trial held during Passover, which would have been illegal; as would have been holding it in the evening (or through the night, as one Gospel has it). Such a mass of historical errors in the account of Jesus' trial and death sentence tells us the entire account is, at best, a largely fictionalized account written by individuals who were mostly ignorant of the time and place they were writing about.

*(The idea that an organization of Jews, after finding one of their number guilty of blasphemy, could have carried out a death sentence with the approval of the Roman government is as ridiculous as the notion that a Muslim organization in present-day U.S. could find one of their number guilty of blasphemy and put them to death with the approval of the U.S. government.)

I suggest that the above points, taken in their entirety, provide compelling evidence that the Resurrection is not a genuine historical event.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 1:52:50 PM PST
Celsus says:
Patrick

Thanks for posting those links on Hitchins. Great stuff.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 319 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Christianity forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  169
Total posts:  7959
Initial post:  Dec 13, 2012
Latest post:  Apr 7, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 17 customers

Search Customer Discussions