120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

Obviously the only argument has to be that Hell does not exist and that Christ was wrong to teach something that is false. If it does exist, then what is the argument? He was only teaching the truth. He can't be wrong if he teaches the truth, can he? You expect him to teach only what feels good and not mention something that is bad even though it is true?

Then then the argument is the discrepancy between 'forgive your enemies' and 'love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you...'' and eternally tormenting those who do not happen to believe merely upon some fickle and petty requirement of faith.

In other words, you want MORE people to be eternally tormented? you want it to be made more difficult for people to escape the eternal torment? You want God to impose tougher rules (than the fickle and petty requirement of faith) for escaping the eternal torment, so that fewer will be able to escape from it?

Why do you want FEWER to escape the eternal torment? Why isn't it OK if the requirement for escaping is an easy one to meet?

 

[Juma]

Then then the argument is the discrepancy between 'forgive your enemies' and 'love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you...'' and eternally tormenting those who do not happen to believe merely upon some fickle and petty requirement of faith.

In other words, you want MORE people to be eternally tormented? you want it to be made more difficult for people to escape the eternal torment? You want God to impose tougher rules (than the fickle and petty requirement of faith) for escaping the eternal torment, so that fewer will be able to escape from it?

Why do you want FEWER to escape the eternal torment? Why isn't it OK if the requirement for escaping is an easy one to meet?

You are so utterly brainwashed...
Why should anyone that has done nothing evil be eternally tormented?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

But there is historical evidence from documents at the time that Jesus performed the miracle acts. There were witnesses present.

Who?

In most of the reported miracle healing events there was a crowd present, including his regular followers. In some cases only a small number. Maybe only 1 or 2 others in some cases, but that's the exception.

There are names of some of them. But it's not necessary to have that kind of detail. These events probably were not recorded right on the spot by someone writing, so details like the exact names of those present could easily become confused.

What eyewitness accounts do we have?

I don't claim there were "eye witness accounts" per se from writers present at the event and writing down what they saw Jesus do. However, couldn't we say that the earliest oral accounts were from eye witnesses? And we don't know that these first accounts were not substantially the same as the later written ones we have now. The eventual written accounts clearly are intended as reports of what was seen earlier by those who were present.

How did anyone determine that they were eyewitnesses, not people writing much later?

There were both. There were the earlier eye witnesses and there were the ones who wrote it down later. There's good reason to believe (but obviously no "proof") that the later writers relied on the earlier reports.

The reliability of these written accounts should be judged by the same standards as any other writings of the period. For most historical events don't we accept the reliability of the writers to give to us an account of what happened based on the information they had?

We should apply the same scepticism toward the "gospel" accounts as we do to any other writings of the period. On that standard we can accept these accounts as generally reliable in transmitting on to us the accounts they had from before. Which doesn't mean they have to be taken as accurate in all detail or can contain no discrepancies whatever.

And when there are reported "miracle" events there's nothing wrong with imposing a more rigid standard. But there's no reason to impose a standard that absolutely rules out the possibility of such events, as some Bible-bashers would do.

Some Bible miracle stories don't meet the proper rigid standard. Partly for lack of eye witnesses, and some other reasons too. But the Jesus healing stories meet a high standard.

 

[none]

Who?

In most of the reported miracle healing events there was a crowd present, including his regular followers. In some cases only a small number. Maybe only 1 or 2 others in some cases, but that's the exception.

There are names of some of them. But it's not necessary to have that kind of detail. These events probably were not recorded right on the spot by someone writing, so details like the exact names of those present could easily become confused.

What eyewitness accounts do we have?

I don't claim there were "eye witness accounts" per se from writers present at the event and writing down what they saw Jesus do. However, couldn't we say that the earliest oral accounts were from eye witnesses? And we don't know that these first accounts were not substantially the same as the later written ones we have now. The eventual written accounts clearly are intended as reports of what was seen earlier by those who were present.

How did anyone determine that they were eyewitnesses, not people writing much later?

There were both. There were the earlier eye witnesses and there were the ones who wrote it down later. There's good reason to believe (but obviously no "proof") that the later writers relied on the earlier reports.

The reliability of these written accounts should be judged by the same standards as any other writings of the period. For most historical events don't we accept the reliability of the writers to give to us an account of what happened based on the information they had?

We should apply the same scepticism toward the "gospel" accounts as we do to any other writings of the period. On that standard we can accept these accounts as generally reliable in transmitting on to us the accounts they had from before. Which doesn't mean they have to be taken as accurate in all detail or can contain no discrepancies whatever.

And when there are reported "miracle" events there's nothing wrong with imposing a more rigid standard. But there's no reason to impose a standard that absolutely rules out the possibility of such events, as some Bible-bashers would do.

Some Bible miracle stories don't meet the proper rigid standard. Partly for lack of eye witnesses, and some other reasons too. But the Jesus healing stories meet a high standard.

your response it too idiotic to pass up.
basically somebody wrote a story that said there were witnesses and you believe the story because it was written.
retarded

 

[bilby]

Who?

In most of the reported miracle healing events there was a crowd present, including his regular followers. In some cases only a small number. Maybe only 1 or 2 others in some cases, but that's the exception.

There are names of some of them. But it's not necessary to have that kind of detail. These events probably were not recorded right on the spot by someone writing, so details like the exact names of those present could easily become confused.

or indeed, indistinguishable from tall stories. Particularly as the source of the stories themselves is the same source as the report of witnesses.

I have a dragon living in my garage. You might not believe this; but you should, because loads of people have seen it - a multitude of them. Including my mate Joe, and his wife Sue.

Now the dragon is EXACTLY as well evidenced as any of these 'miracles' you are so sure about.

What eyewitness accounts do we have?

I don't claim there were "eye witness accounts" per se from writers present at the event and writing down what they saw Jesus do. However, couldn't we say that the earliest oral accounts were from eye witnesses?

We could; but why should we?

And we don't know that these first accounts were not substantially the same as the later written ones we have now.

That we DON'T KNOW whether the stories have changed is not a point in their favour.

The eventual written accounts clearly are intended as reports of what was seen earlier by those who were present.

Just like the account Joe's mate Steve wrote of the dragon in my garage.

How did anyone determine that they were eyewitnesses, not people writing much later?

There were both. There were the earlier eye witnesses and there were the ones who wrote it down later. There's good reason to believe (but obviously no "proof") that the later writers relied on the earlier reports.

In the same way that Steve relied on Joe.

The reliability of these written accounts should be judged by the same standards as any other writings of the period. For most historical events don't we accept the reliability of the writers to give to us an account of what happened based on the information they had?

No, we don't. Unless there is independent corroboration, ideally through archaeological evidence, or through multiple independent sources.

We should apply the same scepticism toward the "gospel" accounts as we do to any other writings of the period.

Yes.

On that standard we can accept these accounts as generally reliable in transmitting on to us the accounts they had from before.

No.

Which doesn't mean they have to be taken as accurate in all detail or can contain no discrepancies whatever.

Steve says my dragon is greenish; Joe reckons it is more a blue-green colour.

And when there are reported "miracle" events there's nothing wrong with imposing a more rigid standard.

Indeed. In fact, it is essential to be more sceptical of the extraordinary. A story of someone in first century Judea drinking wine is easy to accept with little evidence; A story about someone making water into wine requires a LOT of corroboration to be believable.

But there's no reason to impose a standard that absolutely rules out the possibility of such events, as some Bible-bashers would do.

Indeed. The standard is the same as for any claim - show the evidence. I hope you don't absolutely rule out the possibility of my dragon's existence; after all, you have my word, and Joe's, and Steve's. And it is recorded on the Talkfreethought Discussion Board - which obviously SOME people don't trust implicitly; but which undeniably contains some truth.

Some Bible miracle stories don't meet the proper rigid standard. Partly for lack of eye witnesses, and some other reasons too. But the Jesus healing stories meet a high standard.

Really? Then you will have no problem in pointing us to solid evidence from a source other than the Bible.

 

[laughing dog]

Jesus, you people, came to serve the consumer.

 

[DBT]

Then then the argument is the discrepancy between 'forgive your enemies' and 'love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you...'' and eternally tormenting those who do not happen to believe merely upon some fickle and petty requirement of faith.

In other words, you want MORE people to be eternally tormented? you want it to be made more difficult for people to escape the eternal torment? You want God to impose tougher rules (than the fickle and petty requirement of faith) for escaping the eternal torment, so that fewer will be able to escape from it?

Why do you want FEWER to escape the eternal torment? Why isn't it OK if the requirement for escaping is an easy one to meet?

That doesn't follow. The problem I pointed out is the double standard imposed by God. On the one hand God says: 'love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you'' - yet on the other hand, does not adhere to His own moral principles when He torments someone, not even an enemy, for the trivial reason of a lack of belief.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Do the Gospel accounts have historical credibility?

That's a possibility. But it's easier to explain the existence of these accounts if we assume the events really happened.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any reference that says this is the way historical scholars evaluate ancient documents?

It just happens I recently read something from a scholar that makes this point, so I'll quote it. But it shouldn't be necessary. I'm just saying that a good way to judge an account of something in history, or judge what really happened, is to determine what best explains why or how the account was written, or why it says what it says and what impact it had, or was intended to have. Or, how did this account come to be written and what best explains the events that followed the reported event(s)? Isn't it reasonable to ask these questions when you try to judge what really happened and how reliable the account is?

Here is a quote from Martin Dibelius, Jesus, who evaluates the reliability of the Gospel writings. He distinguishes how "Faith" reports the Jesus event from how "History" deals with it and concludes that the easier explanation is that of assuming the reliability of the gospel accounts:

History regards Jesus from an entirely different point of view. On the border of the Roman Empire, in a small, inconsequential country of the East, and amongst a people of no importance in world politics, there appears a man with the announcement of an impending overturn of the world through the direct interposition of God. In God's name he addresses warnings, promises, and demands to his hearers; under God's commission he performs striking deeds, heals the sick, wins followers; he comes into conflict at the capital with the religious and political authorities and is executed. His followers, however, gather together in the faith that he has risen from the dead, has been exalted to God's side, and will shortly appear on earth in glory. This faith, in sundry variations and expansions, makes its way into the Roman Empire and wins a considerable portion of the human race -- and of the Western portion, at that! Historical science is now occupied with answering the question: Why was it just this message, and not some other Oriental or Greek religious proclamation, that intervened so decisively in history, and determined the fate of whole races? But here criticism alone does not lead to the goal. The less credence one gives to the Christian records and the more one ranks Jesus' movement and message as one among many such in the history of the time, the more puzzling becomes this effect on world history!

In other words, in trying to explain the events from 30 AD onward, it is easier to give more credence to the Gospel accounts as to what happened, rather than less credence. The more one rejects these accounts for accuracy, the more difficult it becomes ("more puzzling") to explain what happened.

I'm saying it's easier to explain all that happened if we assume that the accounts of the miracle stories are true. If we don't assume this, then it becomes much more difficult to explain how Jesus became worshiped or made into a God and how this new Jewish cult spread so profusely in this period. It becomes more difficult to explain why it was so easy for St. Paul to win over so many Greeks and Romans to this Galilean-based or Jerusalem-based cult.

How is this not a good way to make historical judgments? You look at what happened, and then you seek the best explanation as to how or why it happened. So, what must have happened earlier (29-30 AD) to explain the later events that we know with more certainty?

Assume that they all record historical events, and go from there?

You think the proper response to the "gospel" accounts is to reject them as non-historical? How do you judge that these records are not about historical events? Even if you assume a fictional element, why does that make them non-historical? Can't there be elements of fiction in a document which is also historically reliable?

Shouldn't any document claiming to report real events be taken seriously and evaluated critically to get out of it whatever is historically reliable? even if it contains doubtful parts to it?

Would you throw out all of Homer or virgil or Livy just because there are fictional elements in them? Isn't there some history mixed with the fiction? Don't all of these record some historical events?

Any examples of this process producing useful results?

What "process"? The process of giving some credibility to a document? What is your dogmatic rule for excluding some documents from receiving any credibility?

Like, have archaeologists found that the tales of Atlantis were accurate?

They have found many times corroboration of accounts which were once thought to have been fictional. Some of the "tales" in Homer were later found to be true.

It sounds like your premise is that the Gospel accounts have to be excluded as entirely fictional and non-historical because they contain miracle stories. What's the basis for a premise like that? Why should such accounts be dogmatically excluded from having any credibility?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

In other words, you want MORE people to be eternally tormented? you want it to be made more difficult for people to escape the eternal torment? You want God to impose tougher rules (than the fickle and petty requirement of faith) for escaping the eternal torment, so that fewer will be able to escape from it?

Why do you want FEWER to escape the eternal torment? Why isn't it OK if the requirement for escaping is an easy one to meet?

You are so utterly brainwashed...
Why should anyone that has done nothing evil be eternally tormented?

Your question implies that someone who HAS done something evil SHOULD be eternally tormented. Is that what you mean?

I don't claim they should or should not be tortured. I myself would not torture even an evil person eternally.

I'm only saying that we don't know if there is a Hell of some kind that happens after we die. But if there is, I think if there is any escape from it, an easier means of escape would be preferable to a difficult one.

I.e., there is nothing wrong with the proposition that one can escape Hell by believing in Christ. That is an easy requirement to meet.

Why should the means of escaping have to be a difficult one? If it's made more difficult to escape, doesn't that mean fewer will escape? Why is it better for fewer to escape than for many to escape?

 

[DBT]

I.e., there is nothing wrong with the proposition that one can escape Hell by believing in Christ. That is an easy requirement to meet.

Pascal's Wager is a flawed argument for salvation.

 

[Juma]

You are so utterly brainwashed...
Why should anyone that has done nothing evil be eternally tormented?

Your question implies that someone who HAS done something evil SHOULD be eternally tormented. Is that what you mean?

I don't claim they should or should not be tortured. I myself would not torture even an evil person eternally.

I'm only saying that we don't know if there is a Hell of some kind that happens after we die. But if there is, I think if there is any escape from it, an easier means of escape would be preferable to a difficult one.

I.e., there is nothing wrong with the proposition that one can escape Hell by believing in Christ. That is an easy requirement to meet.

Why should the means of escaping have to be a difficult one? If it's made more difficult to escape, doesn't that mean fewer will escape? Why is it better for fewer to escape than for many to escape?

I did not imply anything of what you write here.

And pascals wager is a dead horse: how do you know that you wont be tormentet in eternity for your belief?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

In most of the reported miracle healing events there was a crowd present, including his regular followers. In some cases only a small number. Maybe only 1 or 2 others in some cases, but that's the exception.

There are names of some of them. But it's not necessary to have that kind of detail. These events probably were not recorded right on the spot by someone writing, so details like the exact names of those present could easily become confused.

What eyewitness accounts do we have?

I don't claim there were "eye witness accounts" per se from writers present at the event and writing down what they saw Jesus do. However, couldn't we say that the earliest oral accounts were from eye witnesses? And we don't know that these first accounts were not substantially the same as the later written ones we have now. The eventual written accounts clearly are intended as reports of what was seen earlier by those who were present.

How did anyone determine that they were eyewitnesses, not people writing much later?

There were both. There were the earlier eye witnesses and there were the ones who wrote it down later. There's good reason to believe (but obviously no "proof") that the later writers relied on the earlier reports.

The reliability of these written accounts should be judged by the same standards as any other writings of the period. For most historical events don't we accept the reliability of the writers to give to us an account of what happened based on the information they had?

We should apply the same scepticism toward the "gospel" accounts as we do to any other writings of the period. On that standard we can accept these accounts as generally reliable in transmitting on to us the accounts they had from before. Which doesn't mean they have to be taken as accurate in all detail or can contain no discrepancies whatever.

And when there are reported "miracle" events there's nothing wrong with imposing a more rigid standard. But there's no reason to impose a standard that absolutely rules out the possibility of such events, as some Bible-bashers would do.

Some Bible miracle stories don't meet the proper rigid standard. Partly for lack of eye witnesses, and some other reasons too. But the Jesus healing stories meet a high standard.

your response it too idiotic to pass up.
basically somebody wrote a story that said there were witnesses and you believe the story because it was written.
retarded

No, I made it clear that there are written stories that I do NOT believe. To be credible, the story has to meet certain critical standards. The Jesus miracle stories meet the higher standard and so are credible. But there are other Bible miracle stories that are not credible because they don't meet the higher standard.

So it's not "because it was written" that I believe the story.

 

[Juma]

The Jesus miracle stories meet the higher standard

Can you, in short, list these "higher standards"?

 

[none]

No, I made it clear that there are written stories that I do NOT believe. To be credible, the story has to meet certain critical standards. The Jesus miracle stories meet the higher standard and so are credible. But there are other Bible miracle stories that are not credible because they don't meet the higher standard.

So it's not "because it was written" that I believe the story.

so to you the standard is the story mentions witnesses, i get it but it is still moronic.
I can't believe that people actually try and believe the jesus story, any part of it.
can't even say for sure any jesus event occurred but want to say there was witnesses.
fucking morons

 

[Keith&Co.]

There are a lot of texts describing how people has witnessed santa claus.

So you believe those were intended seriously?

See, that's what _I_ remember about the evaluation of historical writings. One has to know who wrote it, and when, and FOR WHAT PURPOSE.

One does not simply start with an assumption that it's credible and go from there.
If it was written a hundred years after an event, it's not an eyewitness account, for example.
If it's written by someone with a vested interest in the story, it should be taken with a salt-lick.

And if the evaluator presupposes the story is true, then their analysis is pretty fucked up.

Of course, kyroot presupposes that the Christain story is false, so his analysis isn't a lot better than your defense. Kind of like watching two inflated boxing toys hash it out...

 

[Failte]

The Jesus miracle stories meet the higher standard

I, too, would like a short accounting of what these "higher standards" are. A quick list would suffice.

 

[none]

In most of the reported miracle healing events there was a crowd present, including his regular followers. In some cases only a small number. Maybe only 1 or 2 others in some cases, but that's the exception.

There are names of some of them. But it's not necessary to have that kind of detail. These events probably were not recorded right on the spot by someone writing, so details like the exact names of those present could easily become confused.

What eyewitness accounts do we have?

I don't claim there were "eye witness accounts" per se from writers present at the event and writing down what they saw Jesus do. However, couldn't we say that the earliest oral accounts were from eye witnesses? And we don't know that these first accounts were not substantially the same as the later written ones we have now. The eventual written accounts clearly are intended as reports of what was seen earlier by those who were present.

How did anyone determine that they were eyewitnesses, not people writing much later?

There were both. There were the earlier eye witnesses and there were the ones who wrote it down later. There's good reason to believe (but obviously no "proof") that the later writers relied on the earlier reports.

The reliability of these written accounts should be judged by the same standards as any other writings of the period. For most historical events don't we accept the reliability of the writers to give to us an account of what happened based on the information they had?

We should apply the same scepticism toward the "gospel" accounts as we do to any other writings of the period. On that standard we can accept these accounts as generally reliable in transmitting on to us the accounts they had from before. Which doesn't mean they have to be taken as accurate in all detail or can contain no discrepancies whatever.

And when there are reported "miracle" events there's nothing wrong with imposing a more rigid standard. But there's no reason to impose a standard that absolutely rules out the possibility of such events, as some Bible-bashers would do.

Some Bible miracle stories don't meet the proper rigid standard. Partly for lack of eye witnesses, and some other reasons too. But the Jesus healing stories meet a high standard.

your response it too idiotic to pass up.
basically somebody wrote a story that said there were witnesses and you believe the story because it was written.
retarded

No, I made it clear that there are written stories that I do NOT believe. To be credible, the story has to meet certain critical standards. The Jesus miracle stories meet the higher standard and so are credible. But there are other Bible miracle stories that are not credible because they don't meet the higher standard.

So it's not "because it was written" that I believe the story.

so you believe there was a jesus but the jesus you believe existed is not accurately portrayed by the bible?
do you have any source which describes this jesus you believe in?
what is this source of non bibilical jesus?

 

[funinspace]

You have made some good points, and I respect your beliefs and analysis. I am not saying that I know I am correct, just that, based on those 122 points, I feel it is more likely that the core theology of Christianity is based on myth and that Jesus was a human who died and will not return.

Do you want me to post your rebuttals on my website?

I don’t find the Santa Claus comparison very instructive, as Santa is still supposedly flying around doing stuff. In most Christian theologies, the doing stuff in this world is long dead. A better contrasting might be something like Jason and the Golden Fleece tale. Ask a Jesus believer to prove this untru.

Actually, I don’t think his points are all that good. There are many liberal Christians who don’t even think accepting Jesus, as ones saviour is even a requirement to get into heaven (or avoid hell). And even more Christians don’t believe in an eternal place of torment for the masses. They don’t believe in such a construct for a good reason, they realize that it is a disgusting and depraved construct. Also, if one thinks the Muslim religion is the correct one, then not accepting Allah, can also send one to their fantasized pit of eternal torment. So deciding to jump into the Jesus wagon, just to be safe, is really no answer.

Regardless, a key problem with discussing the varacity of the “Christian” god claim, is which one of a thousand theologies is one discussing. The fundamentalist/evangelical God-breathed Bible claim is pretty easy to deconstruct and show its false colors, especially if they are YECers. I figured I would copy my previous post from years ago on the old forum, even if it is more about Christian literalism and/or the God-breathed Bible notions.

Linky to old post:
http://frdb.talkfreethought.org/thearchives/showpost.php?p=7334498&postcount=50

I use the phrase “functional atheist; theoretical agnostic” to try and get my view across in a simple way. I don’t think one can disprove any/all proposed god(s). I do think one can reasonably show the conservative/literalist Christian theological God to be false. Whereas, the uber liberal Christian theological construct is a super slippery doubly greased pig. Being so vaguely defined that one cannot really disprove it. I much prefer the words possible, plausible, and probable over the word "prove"...

I wrote this up in 2006, and it still sums up my take well (I had to shorten it due to newer character limits):
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...ua#post3644327

I have little to loose in believing in the Christian god or pink unicorns for that matter. But what does your question have to do with reality. You would say your Christian god made me. So he knows my mind and heart in your view. I can't make myself believe in something I find improbable to be valid, just like the pink unicorn. As far as I'm concerned, he kicked me out, if this Christian god exists. I had believed, and wanted to still believe, but reality was working it's way in and forcing me to deal with it. Again, as a Christian would say he knew my heart and knew what it could bear, and the test was reality, and I passed unto it. And here is how I now look at it with eyes wide open:

These comments within are not an attempt to refute the existence of any god, but to refute a literal Bible and the narrow mindedness that this construct helps generate in my opinion. This is partly an attempt to explain why I no longer have much respect for organized modern Christianity. I do agree that there probably was a Jesus, who preached and prophesized in Israel, and was killed.

A very brief charting of the new testament timeline

Jesus was born 8-4B CE and died 27-34 CE. Jesus is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name J(Y)eshua. And Jeshua is the English phonic pronunciation of the Hebrew name. This is not something that Biblical scholars really disagree about. It's just very carefully not presented to the masses. Why do the preachers even fear stating his more phonically correct name? Are they so unsure of the faith of their congregations? If the truth and the dissecting / discerning of every word in every verse is so important, then why not the proper translation of the name of the messiah? Paul provides the first writings of the cannon that we have today. Paul's first letter was to the Thessalonians or maybe the Galatians, was written about 48-51 CE. His last writing was about 62 CE. Acts was written 20-25 years after his death, and speaks of many amazing things that Paul never refers to in his letters. Mark, the first Gospel to be written, was completed around 65 CE. John was the last to be written, around 90-120 CE. The oldest nearly complete copies of the Gospels range from 200-300AD. There is a 200-300 year gap between the events surrounding Christ and the documents that have survived. And the gap beween when they were written and the copies we have is 100-200 years.

LITERALISM VERSES REALITY

Jerusalem was sacked by Rome in 70 AD. I find it incredulous, that it is coincidental, that the most miraculous portions of the Gospels appeared only after the destruction of the temple and all that went with it. The dispersion/suppression of the Jewish leadership incapacitates their capability to counter the new Christian sect. The first milestone in establishing a cannon was around toward the end of the 2nd century, in reaction to Marcion. The 363 AD Synod of Laodicea almost gave us our current list, but left off Revelations and Esther. The earliest current used NT listing came around 367 AD when Athanasius gave a list in his Easter Letter including Revelations. However, this is a declaration of an individual, and still minus Esther. In 393AD, the Synod of Hippo finally gave us our current list. Though in 692 AD, the Trullan Synod added confusion to what the actual cannon was supposed to be. This decree included, for instance, that both the Synod of Laodicea and the Epistles of Athanasius were to be considered authoritative, even though they contradicted each other on whether Revelation was to be included. Furthering the confusion, this Synod also codified as official the so-called "Eighty-Fifth Apostolic Canon" which was probably written in the late 4th century but attributed to Clement of Rome--this decree established the two letters of Clement as "sacred books" and part of the "venerable and holy" Bible, along with eight other books "which it is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them". The essence though, is that the Cannon and it was basically established at the end of the 4th century as what we now know as the Catholic Bible. This Cannon stood virtually unquestioned until Martin Luther and John Calvin challenged it again based on much more limited information available back in their time. So after 1100 years, the inspiration of the Bible had been wrong. Where is God's guiding hand if you do not except this version of the Bible? I could understand this if one considers this a very human endeavor, groping, trying our best to find the truth. But this is not what fundamentalists, evangelicals, or even your common community Churches prostelyzes. I call them all literalists, whether they recognize their own biases or not. The literalists are as bad about venerating modern interpretations of the Bible, as Catholics are about venerating Mary. If they believe there are essentially no errors outside of minor textual variances, then they have a very big problem with simple logic. Since, if God controlled the construction of the Bible/cannon, then how could he allow it to be incorrect for most of Christian history. That is from the final establishment of the cannon circa 400AD up to the 1500's. Second, if they insist on this "literal inerrancy", then why do most of them not believe in a 6000 year old earth, and a flood happening in the early part of the 3rd millennium BC. That is the first order understanding of the Bible. Are they letting reason interfere with simple faith? Also, if they want to argue that many disagreed in the 4th century AD about the Apocryphal books, then what about the eastern half of Christendom strongly arguing against the inclusion of Revelations right to the end of the 4th century; that the majority of Eastern Orthodox peoples refused to recognize Revelations for another 500 years; that Turtullian didn't consider it authentic; and Augustine didn't believe that John wrote it. Also Martin Luther privately questioned the validity of Revelations. And probably, only the raw power of the Church in Rome, forced the acceptance of Revelations. Without their overwhelming power, Revelations probably wouldn't be part of the Bible. So exactly where is this unanimity of what the Bible should be? Why is it that in this age, you accept this construct without question, when most of the Church fathers struggled with what is true. And this outline skips a large body of detail covering the widespread divergences of the Christian Churches outside of Roman control, such as the Ethiopian, Coptic, Syrian, Byzantine, and Armenian canons. And these are hardly the Gnostic heretics.

OBVIOUS OT CONFLICT WITH HISTORY/REALITY

Simply put, 1100-2300BC is not some point in space and time that is invisible to history. Yet to accept a literal Bible, one must be ignorant, or make some elaborate redactions of reality or the words of the Bible, to not find history contradictory with the Bible. Since I do not believe that there is any significant truth to Noah's flood and Joshua commanding the Sun to stand still, nor believe in literal inerrancy, it does not cause a crisis for me. However, both of these events conflict with historical reality. If there was anything approaching Joshua's planetary demands (never mind the literal words that {offered by a contrarian Xian: a bubble time slip around Canaan kept it true to what they saw. A very imaginative idea, that cannot really be argued} commanded the sun, and not the earth to be still), vice something far simpler like some sort of light over the valleys being fought over, or nothing at all, then the alterations of solar objects could not have been missed by the astronomers of all the civilized empires filling the world circa 1200 BC. Such civilizations include, but are not limited to China, Egypt, Greece, and several Mesopotamian empires. This would have been an absolutely shocking event for all these heathen peoples, and there is no way it would not be recorded as a major and radical event. And the probability that we have not recovered any hint of this event from any of these empires is absurdly low. Therefore, one would have to argue that God was in league with Satin in burying the archaeological information to keep us mortals confused. Therefore why isn't it just as believable that a Q intelligence (a la Star Trek) merely pretending to be gods, was just having fun with our feeble little world. It is no less rational, nor less plausible.

The Bible is quite clear about the timeline from Adam to Noah to Abraham in Genesis 5:3-28 (1056 years) and 5:32,11:10-26 (897 years). A reality that many literalists seem to want to obfuscate. One cannot rationally argue that these were periods, not father to son, over and over again. When passages clearly state when X was A old, Y was born one after another. If one argues for such wildly variant interpretations of such simple and clear words, then one can reconstruct any part of the Bible any way one wants to make for your desired results. And language doesn't have any meaning. Therefore, literalism has no meaning when such methods are employed. Almost all Biblical scholars agree that the time frame for Abraham is 2000-1800BC.

Therefore, the flood would have been roughly 2400-2200BC. Which is impossible, since we have uninterrupted written records of both the Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations going hundreds of years beyond this time. Going further, there is very excellent science that can accurately look at the records of the ice caps in Antarctica going back 740,000 years; and coral reef records from the Australian Great Barrier Reef and others, going back almost 100,000 years. And both records would be devastated by anything approaching a worldwide flood. It would not be missed, overlooked, or misunderstood. So not only could in not happen when the Bible claims due to human records, but it could not have happened at all in any way resembling the tale as told, due to the earths records. Unless of course, if there was a conspiracy of deities? Therefore, either Genesis 5:20-28 is factually wrong, or Noah's flood is a fable, or the gods are having fun with us, or the reality of human sensory perception has no meaning. The period from Abraham to Jacob entering Egypt to begin the 430 years (Ex 12:40) of Egyptian life can be clearly traced in the same manner. Again, where passages clearly state when X was A old, Y was born. The only difficult one is when Joseph is born, but thru carefully searching thru, the specific dates still can be determined. This period lasted 270 years.
Abraham has Isaac at 100 Gen 21:5
Isaac has Jacob at 60 Gen 25:26
Jacob has Joseph at 79 (This date become unimportant to calculations)
Jacob enters Egypt at 130 Gen 47:9
Total: 290

So following the Bible literally, one ends up with the first estimation that's required, when did the 40 years of wandering end and the invasion begin? 1170BC (though there are some newer archeological arguments for making this date about a 100 years younger) is what others have culled from the miscellaneous corners searching from King Solomon back to the invasion. I find that an acceptable number. So that puts Jacob entering Egypt in 1610BC (1170 + 40 + 400). And it places the Birth of Abraham at 1900BC. And that puts the flood at 2297BC if you want to insist on the literal life. The Bible runs just the same back to Adam, showing that mysterious 6,000 years (1900BC + 897 + 1056 = 3853BC, or 5855 years old).

Jacob lived to be 147 years old (Gen 47:28). He is the last of the miraculously long lived Biblical Hebrews. Yet nowhere in history do humans live so long, but for in fables and the Bible. That was only the 16th century BC. We have reasonable knowledge of human history in that area for a 1000 years beyond Jacob's story. And nowhere do men live such long lives except in what we now call fables.

There are innumerous other probable exaggerations, errors, and omissions. I just selected a few of the most obvious problem areas. Here's just a query to another two without detailed discussion: Solomon's wisdom was purportedly known worldwide according to this perfect Bible (10th century BC). Yet only within the Bible do we ever hear of his name. No other kingdom's writings speak of him, how interesting. Does the word hyperbole come to mind? Also in the 8th century an Israeli King asked and got the Sun to reset back a few degrees as a sign. Now we can add a dozen more literate empires to be shocked, that never noticed it again. I comment on areas which have the most irrational defenses written. Whole books have been written to cover all the problems. The above is sufficient to cause one to think if one hasn't already got to the point of hearing without listening.

IT DOESN'T GET MUCH BETTER IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Jeshua said that he did not change one iota from the OT (Matthew 5:17-19 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"). Paul argues directly against this several times in order to make sure Gentiles can be brought into the fold while ignoring the law. So who is the higher authority, Jeshua or Paul? Or do the literalists need to wake up and realize they are not in the Land of Oz Or did I sleep thru the end of heaven and earth? Yes, I have heard the justification, that this has a small translation error, and it is supposed to mean the end of Jeshua's ministry on earth. Ok, so now I can't trust the translations or what? This purported "error" is hardly a minor detail, and one can't say it doesn't matter since it doesn't change Christianity. Most all of the church variants have split over less matters. It even goes to the point where the new Christians decided it was ok to even ignore one of the Ten Commandments (never mind the several hundred other edicts within the Law), to keep and honor the Sabbath. So you can prostitute the Law, as long as it builds a larger church? Oh yes, let's just take the OT laws as guidance, and reduce them to only being goals. But verses in the NT covering sexuality, homosexuality, drunkenness, et.al. are to be taken literally, and not as guidance. So we can ignore one of the 10 commandments by calling it just guidance and by other specious arguments. But cannot consider the NT admonishments of sexuality, alcohol, et.al as merely optional guidance? Huh? I am not that stupid! I see a serious contradiction. If we can see the OT Law as merely guidance, then certainly the NT "laws" are also just guidance for better living. Again these are a literalists words demanding an absolute truth, not mine

I find it fascinating that the later the Gospel was written, the more fantastic the story unfolds. And, but for Mark, all were written after the sacking of Jerusalem. And Mark is the least miraculous, especially if one ignores the forged ending. Later Christians didn't like the ending of Mark so they conspired to commit forgery and added a more pleasing ending. Or shall we pass the arsenic cocktail around and all have a stiff drink? How do you think it got there, but by human machinations? Scholars know of at least one instance where a Gospel verse was adjusted, to make the trinity more definitive. This was probably done in the late second century. Christians conspired to commit forgery by adding and changing what Joseph Flavious wrote in his "History of the Jews" to make sure Jeshua wasn't left out. Of course these Christians didn't consider it forgery, for they were only clarifying the truth. What are Matthew's 3 14's, but an imaginative literary license? What are we to make of Matthew's misquote of Isaiah 7:14, about Isaiah's non-descriptive "young woman"? Where is the Holy Spirit guiding all that is written? Do the ends justify the means? Did the forgers commit deceit with a pure heart? How about the direct contradictions between Matthew and Luke on the birth narrative? It is comical to hear the explaining away of Bethlehem, Nazareth, Egypt, wise men, houses, and stables. They are mutually exclusive stories, if we are to remain literal. And think again about the contortions you go thru to keep it together. Do words still really have any meaning at this point, and again what is literalism at this point? There are almost no grand worldly miracles within the NT. However, Mathew and Luke offer up the miracles of Christ's death with earthquakes and a blood red sky. And yet again nothing outside the Bible speaks of this, no Romans, Greeks, nor Egyptians.

AREAS OF ORGANIZED CHRISTIAN HIPROCRACY

<snip>

A LOVING GOD VS LITERALISM

There are a couple of verses like 1 John 5:11-12, that basically say one is condemned to eternal damnation if you do not accept Jeshua as the only conduit to God. A direct corollary to that is that God condemned around half of humanity to hell for about 1500 years by the method that he chose to reveal the good news. And it only changed slowly for a couple hundred years after. Since he is omnipresent and omnipotent, he was fully capable of creating a method of revelation that could have at least offered others a choice to avoid eternal damnation. Millions of people, in a literal world, never got that choice, they got hell! Now there are some verses that suggest these people get evaluated on their goodness, vice acceptance of Christ. But it is usually the liberal Protestants that hold to this idea. Also, currently about 2/3 of humanity is condemned (4 billion people). This is a loving God? Never mind the rest of humanity's fate, going back to the beginning of time, while the Hebrews were the only select cast. Yes these are harsh words, but I'm trying to get you to think beyond the limits you put upon yourself. And again these are the demands of literalism, not I.
Then there's Exodus 14:4 where God hardened the Pharaoh's heart so he could get his jollies. God murdered at least 1000 people to "gain glory for myself" and that the "Egyptians will know I am the Lord". Well there's NO evidence that this supposed event caused the Egyptians to know the Lord. And in today's understanding butchering a 1000 people is much closer to Bin Laden, than glorious. Do you think these warriors, who followed their King, who was no more than a puppet to God's greater plan, had no families? It's amazing how Christians can so conveniently turn off rational thought as they quickly skate over the overtly violent, vulgar, barbaric, sexually denigrating portions of the OT, and just say that's the way it was.

CONCLUSSIONS

Basically I find the majority of modern literalist views and arguments to be simply bullshit. Literalists lie and obfuscate in order to maintain their false truths. They knowingly choose the most optimistic dates when presenting their view, while the data is widely debated. And their views are a small minority. They purposely leave out the true ranges for the data. They refuse to admit the ugly realities, the difficult truths, et.al. Each difficult verse taken separately always has some complex explanation to keep it perfect. The issue is, how believable are all the defenses when reviewed in totality? Reasonably clear verses about things like father/son relationships, slavery, and polygamy are obfuscated in order to somehow find the Bible on the right side of history, morality, and ethics. What is one to make of obscure verses if we can't even take clear verses at face value, just because we don't like what they say?

There is sufficient evidence of scribes/writers being fully willing to alter documents if it somehow promoted their views of Christianity. The alterations of Josephus Flavious works, the additions to the end Mark, 1 or 2 surviving evidence of early alterations to the cannon that show a tendency to make Jesus more God like. How much other evidence didn't survive from before the 4th century AD due to the consolidation of power of the emerging orthodox church, seated at Rome. Which was to be eventually known as the Roman Catholic Church. And the fact that without transcribing efforts, the texts would disintegrate over time, never mind the intentional destruction of heretical documents. Those that condemn that coalescence of power in Rome, should consider what might have happened if it didn't happen. Gnosticism might have survived as a radical variant of Christianity. Oops, actually it may have survived in the Mandaean's, (and the other's in northern Iraq), or the documents of the extant Coptic Christians. But we certainly wouldn't want to let their quite different views be aired broadly. Thereby forever tainting the "purity" of Christianity. For their beliefs would also have the benefit of 2000 years of obscuring of verifiability. A virtual Christian flavor of Hinduism. The only reason Eusebius could claim that the Gospel of Thomas was unanimously rejected by all the church fathers, was due to the 100+ year campaign to diminish the heterodox elements by what was becoming the orthodox majority centered in Rome, and subtly supported by the Roman Empire. No such claim could have been made in 150AD. History is written by the winners.

 

[Atheos]

The problem (as I see it) that Lumpenproletariat has is that by using the exact same logic presented one cannot exclude the traditions of other religions in which Lumpenproletariat may not believe. For example, how is it that the miracles attested to by witnesses in the bible are to be accepted but the miracles by which Joseph Smith brought forth the book of Mormon are to be disbelieved? The witnesses to Smith's miracles are much more readily identifiable than those claimed to have occurred in the stories about Jesus. There are 8 signed witnesses who claim they saw the golden plates themselves:

BE IT KNOWN unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold ; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

- Signed by Christian Whitmer, Hiram Page, Jacob Whitmer, Joseph Smith, Sen. Peter Whitmer, Jun., Hyrum Smith, John Whitmer and Samuel H. Smith

These plates, inscribed in "reformed Egyptian," were ostensibly taken back up to Heaven by god after Smith was through translating them, conveniently making it impossible for real scholars to get their hands on them and demonstrate that the whole story was BS.

Another similar comparison would be the story of  Barney and Betty Hill, who claimed they were abducted by aliens in 1961. There is no physical evidence any of it happened but there are plenty of witnesses. Witnesses that actually can be identified personally. Witnesses who are more than just anonymous names. Yet the same people who swallow uncritically the absurd claims of Jesus walking on water during a fierce storm dismiss with good reason the claims made by Betty and Barney Hill. They simply cannot find the consistency to employ the same level of rational thinking to their favorite fairy tale.

But the most damning nail in the coffin for bible apologists like Lumpenproletariat here is the fact that the bible itself is of unknown origin. It is laughable that people keep making these ridiculous claims about how reliable the bible is.

The "four gospels" cannot be traced back to anything closer than 40 years after the alleged events they describe. And that's being generous. The reality is more along the lines of 80-100 years minimum for "Mark" and later for the others. They are all anonymous books, never identifying who wrote them. The names traditionally given to the writers don't even appear in the historical record until decades after the books are in circulation, making it impossible for anyone to establish with a straight face any sort of chain of custody between the events described therein and the codified descriptions of said events. Add to that the fact that the events described therein include details the writers could not possibly have witnessed (such as the secret meeting between Herod and the Magi, or the claim that the guards were offered money to bury the story about the angel(s) who showed up at Jesus' tomb). The whole thing is bluster on top of bluster. When one digs into it with even a modicum of skepticism there is nothing of substance, only the vestiges of the original tall tales upon which the entire facade was built.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anonymous tales of questionable origin are a dime a dozen, both then and now. There is no reason to believe these ridiculous tales.

ETA: It doesn't take a lot for me to believe George Washington chopped down a cherry tree when he was a kid, just the testimony of even some anonymous witnesses. But it would take a tremendous amount of confirmatory evidence for me to believe he hurled a silver dollar across the Potomac. Might "Jesus" have existed? Sure. Did he cure blindness? Gonna take more than some musty old anonymous account for me to swallow that one. Personally, however, I doubt there ever was a Jesus. The tales in the New Testament do no better job convincing me that Jesus existed than the tales of Perseus (hundreds of years before Jesus) convince me that he existed. Both were born of women impregnated by gods, both were menaced by jealous rulers when they were babies, both escaped the menace by travelling to a distant country, both came back to the land of their birth to perform many wonderful deeds, both met with skepticism and ridicule, both were triumphant in the end of their respective stories. Both stories were believed by many religious followers. This mythic hero storyline was very popular for many centuries before it was applied to the Jesus myth. Even the story of Moses followed the same story line.

 

[none]

okay, I'll ask.
what is the source to confirm that there was a jesus that wasn't as described in the Bible?