What is the best evidence against Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-11-2016, 01:29 PM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2016 04:00 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
There is no "Christianity". There are thousands of versions.
The notion of "salvation" is not "Biblical" nor is it found in Hebrew thinking.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ic-Origins
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-Look

There are MANY valid reasons to doubt the historicity of Jesus, and almost all the "facts" as presented in the gospels.

Resurrection is not found in Paul's letters. What IS found, is that he was "exalted" as a Jewish hero, (not resurrected) ... a very different concept to a Jewish Apocalytic ancient Jew.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

References :
BB Scott, "The Trouble with Resurrection"
B. Ehrman, "How Jesus Became a God, The EXALTATION of a Jewish Preacher from Palestine"

The VAST over-simplification of what is accepted and what is not, (of course NEVER with any references) only *claims* of *consensus*, simply belies lack of knowledge and bias. There are many reasons to doubt almost all the elements of historicity. The Gospel of Mark knows about the destruction of Jerusalem, (thus was written LONG after the fact, and had no resurrection in it's earliest version, and there were no ways these people had to "record facts"). We know today, that in "remembering" anything, human brains basically reinvent the event.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/20...163aa66c0e

The Gospels are not "history". They are proclamations of belief to/for believing communities many decades later than the events, with no way to verify anything.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...spels.html

The content of the preaching attributed to Jesus represents the concerns of LATE 1st Century Rabbinc (post temple-destruction) Judaism, not early.
That's but one of many legitimate reasons to doubt any single element.

Many legitimate scholars do not agree on many things about the historical origins of Christianity. The "Jesus Seminar" never achieved 100 % agreement on anything.
So, make up your own mind. Don't take the dogmatic assertions of pompous patronizing old farts who dismiss all the legitimate questions,
as though they have any more legitimacy than other opinions on this subject.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
30-11-2016, 01:36 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(29-11-2016 01:59 PM)Ask21771 Wrote:  please tell me which facts are the best evidence for christianity

I haven't read any comments, but wanted to drive by post my thought on your headline Smile

The best evidence against Christianity is the Bible...I mean, have you ever read it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 01:55 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(29-11-2016 01:59 PM)Ask21771 Wrote:  please tell me which facts are the best evidence for christianity

It seems you mean to ask for evidence against.

Any claim needs to come with evidence for it. It is the claimant that needs to provide the details of their claim. It's called the burden of proof. Otherwise, any imaginative person, or person willing to take from older stories and rework as new stories, could come up with any story. Perhaps a story about fairies or werewolves or vampires or leprechauns or ghosts etc.

The stories of "Jesus" were not written by anyone who knew Yeshua. The stories of speeches or sermons that Yeshua gave where not written by anyone who heard Yeshua speak. These stories were written down decades later and hence are very unreliable.

There really is no evidence to suggest that Yeshua existed. "Christians" have been guilty multiple times of altering historical documents to insert "evidence" for Yeshua. Why would they need to do something like that unless they have some underhanded agenda?

Now, claims that include magical things ought to be treated as not matching with our experience of reality. We ought to be highly skeptical and demanding of a large amount of supporting evidence. It's not up to us to prove these extraordinary claims to be false. The one making the claim needs to provide the evidence. Some guy rising from the dead, walking on water, producing an endless supply of water based fish, turning water into wine, it's all very remarkable (I mean, if you met a person today who claimed to have done any of these things, you would consider him to be mentally ill), so where is the evidence?

They catch you through fear. They tell you that now that you have heard about "Jesus" you have to believe otherwise you will be punished by going to hell for eternal torment. Even though you may consider this to be highly unlikely, the consequences are so extreme that you are not willing to take the chance, so you choose to believe.

Now for me, even if this Christian god did exist, would I be happy that it must be obeyed through fear of punishment? I live in a democratic country, it does not seem acceptable to me to have some ruthless dictator make these unreasonable demands on me. Is the Christian god so horrid and ruthless and controlling?
Christian's would have you believe that their god is Love, is perfect, is just. This doesn't match up at all with the biblical stories and the idea of hell and the idea that you must believe without evidence. The Christian story is non nonsensical and fantastical, gory and grotesque. It is so different to our experience of reality we ought to take it as fictional fantasy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 02:21 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
I hate to be the one to bring this up, but Joseph of Arimathea. Arimathea was a small podunk town of no import later, but could also be a pun if one takes the scholarship of Dr. Richard Carrier to be accurate. It could be a pun for a town name; 'best disciple,' ari[stos] mathe[tes]. Matheia means 'disciple town' in Greek, whereas 'Ari' is frequently used to denote superiority. So Joseph of Best Disciple Town.

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Shai Hulud's post
30-11-2016, 04:35 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(30-11-2016 09:30 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Oh?

(29-11-2016 08:27 PM)Aractus Wrote:  No it isn't, and if you use the mythicist argument with Christians they have every right not to listen to anything else you say.

That is what you said.

Right, what I said was that you need to hold yourself to the same standard of evidence that you hold Christians to. If you're not going to do that you won't be taken seriously. The mythicist position is not supported by scholars, it is not worthy of debate.

Should it be completely disregarded without consideration? No. But it has been considered already and Christians are well aware of this. What they're less aware of are the scholarly thoughts that differ greatly with their beliefs.

Quote:Wrong. There is sufficient historical evidence to justify his existence. That does not make the question invalid.

What I meant is that there is no valid reason to doubt it.

Quote:Maybe it was jesus. The thing is, while you can determine that he did exist, determining quotes and sayings is much more problematic.

While that's true, we're still sure that he is the one who came up with content in the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Good Samaritan, and that central to his teachings were that the contemporary Jewish leaders were teaching a corrupted form of Judaism.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 04:49 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(30-11-2016 01:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no "Christianity". There are thousands of versions.
Well there are a few main versions, but yes there are thousands if not millions of individually held theologies. But it doesn't alter the fact that early Christianity is based on a shared mythology, and that Christianity today is based on a shared mythology.

Quote:Resurrection is not found in Paul's letters.

Yes I've already made that point in this thread.

Quote:The VAST over-simplification of what is accepted and what is not, (of course NEVER with any references) only *claims* of *consensus*, simply belies lack of knowledge and bias.

Well you would know that there is no agreement over much of the gospel content. What there is wide agreement on is that:

1. Jesus of Nazereth was a historical person.
2. He was baptised by John.
3. He preformed healings, exorcisms, and gave teachings.
4. He called disciples.
5. He was crucified by the Romans under Pontius Pilate.

And as I've noted there are a few specific events that are considered historical in addition like the disruption in the temple and the rejection at Nazareth.

Quote:There are many reasons to doubt almost all the elements of historicity. The Gospel of Mark knows about the destruction of Jerusalem, (thus was written LONG after the fact, and had no resurrection in it's earliest version, and there were no ways these people had to "record facts").

Although I do like to point out the fact that the Resurrection is not in Mark, he still knows about it which is very clear from the passages that are in Mark like this:

Mark 16:6-7: And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”

So your assertion that the mythology didn't exist yet is false. Secondly we can't determine that Mark was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, because I'm willing to say that Jesus did predict the siege. I'd agree that 70-75 AD is the most likely date for the gospel, but we can't rule out an earlier date based purely on the fact that Jesus couldn't have predicted the siege of Jerusalem. That was an easy prediction, all he had to do was remember the past and predict it would happen again.

Quote:The Gospels are not "history". They are proclamations of belief to/for believing communities many decades later than the events, with no way to verify anything.

Well there is - the Last Supper appears in Corinthians before any of the gospels are written.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 06:50 PM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2016 05:26 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
Quote:Well you would know that there is no agreement over much of the gospel content. What there is wide agreement on is that:

1. Jesus of Nazereth was a historical person.
2. He was baptised by John.
3. He preformed healings, exorcisms, and gave teachings.
4. He called disciples.
5. He was crucified by the Romans under Pontius Pilate.

And as I've noted there are a few specific events that are considered historical in addition like the disruption in the temple and the rejection at Nazareth.

No references. No support. One cannot claim concesus without EVIDENCE.
In light of past egregious errors, nothing some people assert is considered trustworthy.


Quote:Although I do like to point out the fact that the Resurrection is not in Mark, he still knows about it which is very clear from the passages that are in Mark like this:

Mark 16:6-7: And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”

So your assertion that the mythology didn't exist yet is false. Secondly we can't determine that Mark was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, because I'm willing to say that Jesus did predict the siege. I'd agree that 70-75 AD is the most likely date for the gospel, but we can't rule out an earlier date based purely on the fact that Jesus couldn't have predicted the siege of Jerusalem. That was an easy prediction, all he had to do was remember the past and predict it would happen again."

Laugh out load
THAT is EXACTLY the portion that was missing.

"Mark 16 is the final chapter of the Gospel of Mark in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. It begins with the discovery of the empty tomb by Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. There they encounter a man dressed in white who announces the Resurrection of Jesus (16:1-6).

The two oldest manuscripts of Mark 16 (from the 300s) then conclude with verse 8,[1] which ends with the women fleeing from the empty tomb, and saying "nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Many scholars take 16:8 as the original ending and believe the longer ending (16:9-20) was a later addition. In this 12-verse passage, the author refers to Jesus' appearances to Mary Magdalene, two disciples, and then the Eleven (the Twelve Apostles minus Judas). The text concludes with the Great Commission, declaring that believers that have been baptized will be saved while nonbelievers will be condemned, and pictures Jesus taken to Heaven and sitting at the Right Hand of God."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

And this is EXACTLY why I said people need to make up their own minds, instead of listening to pompous assertions from those who have no clue.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
30-11-2016, 07:55 PM
What is the best evidence against Christianity
Judism

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 08:34 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(30-11-2016 04:49 PM)Aractus Wrote:  
(30-11-2016 01:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no "Christianity". There are thousands of versions.
Well there are a few main versions, but yes there are thousands if not millions of individually held theologies. But it doesn't alter the fact that early Christianity is based on a shared mythology, and that Christianity today is based on a shared mythology.

Quote:Resurrection is not found in Paul's letters.

Yes I've already made that point in this thread.

Quote:The VAST over-simplification of what is accepted and what is not, (of course NEVER with any references) only *claims* of *consensus*, simply belies lack of knowledge and bias.

Well you would know that there is no agreement over much of the gospel content. What there is wide agreement on is that:

1. Jesus of Nazereth was a historical person.
2. He was baptised by John.
3. He preformed healings, exorcisms, and gave teachings.
4. He called disciples.
5. He was crucified by the Romans under Pontius Pilate.

And as I've noted there are a few specific events that are considered historical in addition like the disruption in the temple and the rejection at Nazareth.

Quote:There are many reasons to doubt almost all the elements of historicity. The Gospel of Mark knows about the destruction of Jerusalem, (thus was written LONG after the fact, and had no resurrection in it's earliest version, and there were no ways these people had to "record facts").

Although I do like to point out the fact that the Resurrection is not in Mark, he still knows about it which is very clear from the passages that are in Mark like this:

Mark 16:6-7: And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”

So your assertion that the mythology didn't exist yet is false. Secondly we can't determine that Mark was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, because I'm willing to say that Jesus did predict the siege. I'd agree that 70-75 AD is the most likely date for the gospel, but we can't rule out an earlier date based purely on the fact that Jesus couldn't have predicted the siege of Jerusalem. That was an easy prediction, all he had to do was remember the past and predict it would happen again.

Quote:The Gospels are not "history". They are proclamations of belief to/for believing communities many decades later than the events, with no way to verify anything.

Well there is - the Last Supper appears in Corinthians before any of the gospels are written.

Allrighty then, here we go again..... Aractus and Bucky Ball......

[Image: giphy.gif]

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 08:59 PM
RE: What is the best evidence against Christianity
(29-11-2016 09:06 PM)Aractus Wrote:  More broadly there is agreement he delivered teachings, performed healings, and called disciples as well. [...]

There is no extant evidence that the man called Jesus performed any clinical-type "healings". What evidence do you personally draw upon to agree with the assertion that he really did heal people? Or are you relying solely on yet another doubtful bit of hearsay in the bible?

On the other hand, if you don't personally believe this man performed healings, can you elaborate on the people who do, and who are in broad agreement that he did?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: