Who Started Christianity?

[roughdraft274]

You're right about the first part - that there isn't any evidence for alternative narratives, but there's plenty of manuscript evidence for the Gospels and New Testament.

Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability|Accuracy of the New Testament | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

He's comparing works of philosophy and such to works of myth like the bible. you can't do this. It doesn't matter how long of time it was between the first copy and the earliest manuscript of something like a book on math or such. What is written inside it is either true or not, and you can judge it by it's merits. You can review it and test it, and reject that which doesn't work.

When it is a book like the bible, and has mythical tales of virgin births, miracles and resurrections, there is a higher degree of evidence needed to assume it's all true. Period. Even if we had the original manuscripts and they had been written the same day that Jesus had been resurrected (supposedly) they would not be reliable. Because their are far more likely scenarios.

Compare this to all of the people that are currently alive that can give you first hand testimony of alien encounters and being abducted by aliens. Many of the stories are even very similar. And these people speak of it as if they are very certain. But the much more likely scenario is that they weren't abducted by aliens. Yet when you are given these manuscripts that are written decades after the supposed event, you think that this is good enough to declare it as fact? Laughable.

You just said above you don't have any alternative narratives, so I don't expect you to have anything.

But it does look like you haven't done any real in-depth research into the earliest manuscripts, etc. For instance, you might want to study up on this:

Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ « The Righter Report

It doesn't matter what "earliest manuscripts" you have. That doesn't show anything to be true. You're argument falls flat on it's face. Manuscripts from decades after the event are not reliable evidence for such miraculous claims. And if it you do find it to be such convincing evidence, then why is first hand accounts of alien abductions from many many people also not extremely convincing to you?

 

[phattonez]

Compare this to all of the people that are currently alive that can give you first hand testimony of alien encounters and being abducted by aliens. Many of the stories are even very similar. And these people speak of it as if they are very certain. But the much more likely scenario is that they weren't abducted by aliens. Yet when you are given these manuscripts that are written decades after the supposed event, you think that this is good enough to declare it as fact? Laughable.

Torture a group who supposedly saw the same alien invasion and you're likely to get a lot who would confess rather than die.

 

[roughdraft274]

Mormons and Scientologists grew from a prophet who claimed visions. That's not verifiable. A resurrection is easily verifiable. If you find a body, the religion is dead. Where is Christ's body?

No it's not. And you are assuming right from the beginning that Jesus was crucified just as layed out in the bible. You're entire argument is " we know the bible is true because the bible says that Jesus was crucified and put in a cave (which cave btw) and was resurrected, and we still can't find the body". Well you're assuming that the bible is factual in describing the crucifixion and being placed in a cave. Much more likely in those days that he was thrown in to a big pit than a cave. You're argument is circular and not convincing.

So the people who adopted Christianity believed in a religion that taught that a crucifixion happened a few years ago in a place near where they all lived, and it didn't really happen? Are you serious? Do you think so little of the ancients?

I don't think that highly of people that live now, much less the "ancients". You can get stupid gullible morons now a days to believe in 9/11 conspiracies, you don't think a bunch of illiterate goat herders could be talked in to some bull ****? What about every other religion in the world? Should we assume it's true because there's no way that those people are stupid enough to believe that crap if it weren't true? Another terrible argument from you.

All it takes to disprove Christianity is finding Christ's body. The body was never found, and the apostles never gave in despite being tortured. People don't die for what they know to be a lie. How do you deal with that? All of the apostles (and untold others who saw Christ resurrected) all died under torture for something that they knew was a lie?

I don't need to disprove Christianity or find a body. You can only assume that there is a body in a cave to be found if you assume the bible is telling the truth when it says Jesus was placed in a cave and that no one ever came back to remove the body. Something that is in no way actually verifiable. You are making broad, ignorant assumptions.

As for the apostles deaths, there are few accounts, even in the bible, of the actual apostle's being martyred. Many tales and legends creeped up way after the fact, hundreds of years later, but very few details in the actual bible. So again, you are arguing that because you believe that the apostles were martyred, why on earth would they do that if it wasn't true, when in reality you have no evidence or proof that they were even martyred. You can not argue based on assumptions (the apostles were martyred) that you can't prove. You must first prove they were martyred. These claims require evidence. The same evidence that you would request if I were trying to sell you on any other religion. But you don't demand for this religion.

 

[roughdraft274]

Torture a group who supposedly saw the same alien invasion and you're likely to get a lot who would confess rather than die.

Again, where is your evidence that any of the apostles were tortured? Where in the bible does it mention this and then give me evidence on how you know that this part of the bible is true. You can't just claim that they were tortured and then not give any evidence for that claim.

 

[phattonez]

No it's not. And you are assuming right from the beginning that Jesus was crucified just as layed out in the bible. You're entire argument is " we know the bible is true because the bible says that Jesus was crucified and put in a cave (which cave btw) and was resurrected, and we still can't find the body". Well you're assuming that the bible is factual in describing the crucifixion and being placed in a cave. Much more likely in those days that he was thrown in to a big pit than a cave. You're argument is circular and not convincing.

The way you are spinning it is non-circular. We know that He was crucified because, had He not been crucified, and the early Church proclaimed that He was, then the early converts would never have converted. Claiming that a large event occurred in your local area, and being wrong, isn't going to get you many followers. The early converts knew that Jesus existed and was crucified. There is no doubt about this.

I don't think that highly of people that live now, much less the "ancients". You can get stupid gullible morons now a days to believe in 9/11 conspiracies, you don't think a bunch of illiterate goat herders could be talked in to some bull ****? What about every other religion in the world? Should we assume it's true because there's no way that those people are stupid enough to believe that crap if it weren't true? Another terrible argument from you.

Again, you're letting your emotions cloud your objective judgment. Other religions do not depend on a very large public event as proof of its veracity. Christianity claims a resurrection. This requires death, a lack of a body, and witnesses. There were 11 apostles who were all witnesses (10 of whom were martyred for their belief) and 500 others who were witnesses and likely mostly murdered. Again, people do not choose to die for what they know to be a lie.

I don't need to disprove Christianity or find a body. You can only assume that there is a body in a cave to be found if you assume the bible is telling the truth when it says Jesus was placed in a cave and that no one ever came back to remove the body. Something that is in no way actually verifiable. You are making broad, ignorant assumptions.

1. There was a guard put in front of the tomb. If someone went in to sneak the body away, the punishment for that is death. This already makes stealing the body unlikely.
2. The apostles, the only ones to gain from it, merited a demise of torture and execution for proclaiming Christ crucified. They didn't seem to gain much. The Jews and Romans, on the other hand, had every advantage to quelling this Christian rising by throwing the body of Christ to any self-professed Christians. They could not do so because they had no body. This is further evidence that the resurrection actually happened.

As for the apostles deaths, there are few accounts, even in the bible, of the actual apostle's being martyred. Many tales and legends creeped up way after the fact, hundreds of years later, but very few details in the actual bible. So again, you are arguing that because you believe that the apostles were martyred, why on earth would they do that if it wasn't true, when in reality you have no evidence or proof that they were even martyred. You can not argue based on assumptions (the apostles were martyred) that you can't prove. You must first prove they were martyred. These claims require evidence. The same evidence that you would request if I were trying to sell you on any other religion. But you don't demand for this religion.

Josephus mentions the martyrdom of James. We also know that Tacitus mentions the persecution of Christians by Nero. Tacitus wrote about Nero only a few decades after the death of Christ. Nero could have easily quelled the Christian rising by showing that Christ's body was found. He could not because there was no body.

 

[roughdraft274]

The way you are spinning it is non-circular. We know that He was crucified because, had He not been crucified, and the early Church proclaimed that He was, then the early converts would never have converted. Claiming that a large event occurred in your local area, and being wrong, isn't going to get you many followers. The early converts knew that Jesus existed and was crucified. There is no doubt about this.



Again, you're letting your emotions cloud your objective judgment. Other religions do not depend on a very large public event as proof of its veracity. Christianity claims a resurrection. This requires death, a lack of a body, and witnesses. There were 11 apostles who were all witnesses (10 of whom were martyred for their belief) and 500 others who were witnesses and likely mostly murdered. Again, people do not choose to die for what they know to be a lie.



1. There was a guard put in front of the tomb. If someone went in to sneak the body away, the punishment for that is death. This already makes stealing the body unlikely.
2. The apostles, the only ones to gain from it, merited a demise of torture and execution for proclaiming Christ crucified. They didn't seem to gain much. The Jews and Romans, on the other hand, had every advantage to quelling this Christian rising by throwing the body of Christ to any self-professed Christians. They could not do so because they had no body. This is further evidence that the resurrection actually happened.



Josephus mentions the martyrdom of James. We also know that Tacitus mentions the persecution of Christians by Nero. Tacitus wrote about Nero only a few decades after the death of Christ. Nero could have easily quelled the Christian rising by showing that Christ's body was found. He could not because there was no body.

This is laughable. You say that 10 of them were martyred as if it were fact then you gie not even a handful of accounts that are dated WAY after supposed incidents occurred.

And again, you are claiming the bible is true because the bible says there were 500 witnesses.

YOU CAN'T SAY A BOOK IS TRUE BECAUSE THE BOOK CLAIMS THAT 500 PEOPLE WERE WITNESSES. --- Repeat this to yourself 50 times and get back to me. And then tell Lee Strobel that he's a jack ass for telling you this bull****.

You're entire argument boils down to "it became popular, and we didn't find a body, so it must be true." This is utter bull****. There is no other way to describe it. You are using the bible to prove the bible. This is not how the world works. If you want to claim that miracles have occurred you need better evidence than "my book said so and you know it's true cause my book says it's true"

 

[Logicman]

He's comparing works of philosophy and such to works of myth like the bible. you can't do this.

There's no mention of "myths." That's your unsupported allegation.

When it is a book like the bible, and has mythical tales of virgin births, miracles and resurrections, there is a higher degree of evidence needed to assume it's all true. Period. Even if we had the original manuscripts and they had been written the same day that Jesus had been resurrected (supposedly) they would not be reliable. Because their are far more likely scenarios.

Like I said, your allegations are unsubstantiated. You'll need to show me the replicated scientific studies that prove that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist. To date, there are none.

It doesn't matter what "earliest manuscripts" you have. That doesn't show anything to be true. You're argument falls flat on it's face. Manuscripts from decades after the event are not reliable evidence for such miraculous claims. And if it you do find it to be such convincing evidence, then why is first hand accounts of alien abductions from many many people also not extremely convincing to you?

Once again, you make claims, BUT YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THE NEW TESTAMENT / GOSPELS ARE FALSE.

Here's a good book I can recommend for you:

 

[zyzygy]

Like I said, your allegations are unsubstantiated. You'll need to show me the replicated scientific studies that prove that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist. To date, there are none.

What a question! Can you show us the replicated scientific studies that show us that leprechauns and mermaids do not exist?

 

[Logicman]

What a question! Can you show us the replicated scientific studies that show us that leprechauns and mermaids do not exist?

Start your own thread on it. We've already provided substantial evidence for God in the "Evidence for the Bible / God" thread.

 

[KevinKohler]

History shows your first two points are wrong. And Christianity is the true fulfillment of OT Judaism.

According to Christians.

 

[KevinKohler]

Though if the claims of Jesus are correct, then the old religion is finished.

If. Yes.


In the meantime, while that goes unproven, my point stands, as it applies to the OP.

 

[jet57]

With a rather large public display of violence completely dismantled by Christian influence.

Caesar Caligula and the Pagan Visigoths sure knuckled under didn't they? And I wouldn't say Christianity ended the Gladiators in 399AD, but rather Constantine ended the Gladiators.

 

[zyzygy]

We've already provided substantial evidence for God in the "Evidence for the Bible / God" thread.

No you haven't.

 

[Logicman]

No you haven't.

Yeah, we did, but as usual you denied the truth.

 

[RogueWarrior]

You want me to name the Apostles? That's what you're driving at?

You genuinely believe that anyone who qualifies as a skeptic is going to regard the New Testament as absolutely true, without subjecting it to any sort of scrutiny?



So basically, you're going to categorically rule out all modern scholarship. Glad to see you're willing to accept evidence... as long as it supports your pre-approved conclusion. Nice.

Did you not read the 2nd or third post before responding to thread?

 

[roughdraft274]

There's no mention of "myths." That's your unsupported allegation.



Like I said, your allegations are unsubstantiated. You'll need to show me the replicated scientific studies that prove that God and the supernatural do not and cannot exist. To date, there are none.



Once again, you make claims, BUT YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THE NEW TESTAMENT / GOSPELS ARE FALSE.

Here's a good book I can recommend for you:

View attachment 67172653

I don't need evidence to prove them false. Just like I don't need evidence to prove there's no bigfoot. You are the one making the assertion that the gospels are true and so far the best evidence I've seen from any Christian is

1. Why would the apostles allow themselves to be tortured. Even though we have no proof they were ever tortured at all, just here say from decades or centuries later. The bible hardly even makes mention of this claim.

2. We know the bible is true cause we haven't found a body. Which assumes Jesus was placed in a cave in the first place. A classic example of using the bible to prove the bible. A terrible method.

3. Saying that we have manuscripts from parts of the bible as early as 30 or so years after Jesus's birth. As if that's really the kind of evidence that one can look at and go "oh only 30 years? well I guess there really was a virgin birth and a resurrection."

This is laughable. The evidence Christians have presented are full of holes and in almost every case can't be verified because it assumes the bible is telling the truth the whole way through. And you have the nerve to tell me I have no proof? Don't be ridiculous.

 

[roughdraft274]

You've got nothing until you explain it here. This isn't a thread for your self-serving book recommendations, it's a debate forum for skeptic's views.

Here's a good book I can recommend for you:

View attachment 67172653

Sums up your views nicely. Anything to spread the word of the lord right buddy?

 

[Logicman]

I don't need evidence to prove them false. Just like I don't need evidence to prove there's no bigfoot. You are the one making the assertion that the gospels are true and so far the best evidence I've seen from any Christian is

1. Why would the apostles allow themselves to be tortured. Even though we have no proof they were ever tortured at all, just here say from decades or centuries later. The bible hardly even makes mention of this claim.

2. We know the bible is true cause we haven't found a body. Which assumes Jesus was placed in a cave in the first place. A classic example of using the bible to prove the bible. A terrible method.

3. Saying that we have manuscripts from parts of the bible as early as 30 or so years after Jesus's birth. As if that's really the kind of evidence that one can look at and go "oh only 30 years? well I guess there really was a virgin birth and a resurrection."

This is laughable. The evidence Christians have presented are full of holes and in almost every case can't be verified because it assumes the bible is telling the truth the whole way through. And you have the nerve to tell me I have no proof? Don't be ridiculous.

You don't have anything, just hot-air denial of the historical accounts from multiple sources. Your conclusion: They're all crazy or liars or the manuscripts have been changed, or blah blah blah. You sound like Bill Clinton denying all the sexual liaisons reports from numerous eyewitnesses.

 

[Logicman]

Sums up your views nicely. Anything to spread the word of the lord right buddy?

As opposed to spreading the lies of the devil like you wittingly or unwittingly do? I'll take the Word of the Lord, thank you.

 

[zyzygy]

As opposed to spreading the lies of the devil like you wittingly or unwittingly do? I'll take the Word of the Lord, thank you.

No such person as the Devil. Another myth with no basis in reality.

 

[roughdraft274]

As opposed to spreading the lies of the devil like you wittingly or unwittingly do? I'll take the Word of the Lord, thank you.

Lol, ok. Now you're gonna go ahead and do a post saying the exact opposite right?

 

[roughdraft274]

You don't have anything, just hot-air denial of the historical accounts from multiple sources. Your conclusion: They're all crazy or liars or the manuscripts have been changed, or blah blah blah. You sound like Bill Clinton denying all the sexual liaisons reports from numerous eyewitnesses.

Historical accounts from multiple sources? lol. I can go out right now and get you thousands of first hand testimonies of alien abductions. Why is that not believable, but some old writings, written decades or centuries later that describe stuff that is just as silly as alien abductions is completely believable?

You need to consider this.

 

[Logicman]

No such person as the Devil. Another myth with no basis in reality.

Wrong again, sport.

 

[Logicman]

Historical accounts from multiple sources? lol. I can go out right now and get you thousands of first hand testimonies of alien abductions. Why is that not believable, but some old writings, written decades or centuries later that describe stuff that is just as silly as alien abductions is completely believable?

You need to consider this.

Well I've studied the phenomenon of "Pseudoscience and the Paranormal" in college psychology, and you're all wet to compare the two. I doubt you have any formal education on the subject, and it's also quite obvious that you have no formal theological education either, or you wouldn't be taking the positions you do.

If you want to pursue that further start your own thread. This one is on skeptic's alternative theories and evidences for the start of Christianity. And you've already admitted you have no clue on all that, except to deny the historical accounts of the New Testament.

So until you get something related to this thread topic, please save your spurious fulminations for someone who believes you.

 

[roughdraft274]

Well I've studied the phenomenon of "Pseudoscience and the Paranormal" in college psychology, and you're all wet to compare the two.

You're avoiding the question. You can't tell me one good reason as to why one is more believable than the other. Instead you attack my education lol. You might as well admit defeat if that is the best you have.