1,186 Reasons Christianity Is Wrong

[stromboli]

http://www.kyroot.com/

Most Christians fail to comprehend  the implications of the belief system they embrace.  Much of what they ‘ know’ about their religion is a highly sanitized version that is promoted by their priests and pastors.  Few bother to read and understand what is written in the Bible or think critically about what Christian doctrine implies. 

The 1186 points listed below each present a claim for questioning the authenticity of Christianity.  In total, they lay out a convincing case that Christianity is untrue.  This is based on the premise that a true, factual religion guided by a supernatural god would be precise, flawless, authentic, transcendent, unmatched, unique, prescient, prophetic, revelatory, internally consistent, and scientifically accurate.  In Christianity, we see none of these elements.

Gary Shadle is a theist who volunteered to construct a rebuttal to each of the listed reasons.  His comments are posted under the page “REBUTTAL-GARY SHADLE.”

This site can be read as a book or otherwise individual points can be accessed under “LIST OF REASONS.” by clicking the link below:
http://www.kyroot.com/?page_id=1340

[It is generally assumed herein that Jesus was a unique individual, although the author acknowledges that significant evidence suggests he is purely mythical or a composite of several 1st Century preachers]

There is a great website that complements this one that I recommend, The Church of Truth:

https://thechurchoftruth.org/

(1) Jesus Seminar

The Jesus Seminar was a collaborative effort of approximately 200 professionally-trained specialists in the field of religion tasked with the goal to cut through the myth and expose the historical Jesus.  Membership was limited to scholars with advanced academic degrees (Ph.D. or equivalent) in religious studies or related disciplines from accredited universities worldwide and to published authors who were recognized authorities in the field of religion (by special invitation only).  The task force convened on and off from 1985 to 2006.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/the-jesus-seminar/

The principal finding was that the quotes and deeds of Jesus as written in the Gospels are mostly mythical.  In fact, only 18% of the sayings and 16% of the deeds attributed to Jesus were thought to be authentic.  The scholars used cross-cultural anthropological studies to set the general background, narrowing in on the history and society of first-century Palestine, and used textural analysis along with anthropological, historical, and archaeological evidence.

Other findings of the group included:

Jesus of Nazareth was born during the reign of Herod the Great.

His mother’s name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph.

Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.

Jesus was an itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts.

Jesus practiced faith healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic.

He did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead.

Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans.

He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.

The empty tomb is a fiction â€" Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead.

Other findings of the group included:

Jesus of Nazareth was born during the reign of Herod the Great.

His mother’s name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph.

Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.

Jesus was an itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts.

Jesus practiced faith healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic.

He did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead.

Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans.

He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.

The empty tomb is a fiction â€" Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead.

Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter and Mary Magdalene.

(Stromboli heaps contents on fire, light metaphorical match, runs)

1,186 reasons. Have at it, y'all. In case you're having a slow day. 

[reasonist]

Very interesting. Thank you for posting that.
200 religious scholars and academics agree that the whole story is just that, a story? Watch how it's either ignored or ridiculed by the apologist(s).

[stromboli]

Very interesting. Thank you for posting that.
200 religious scholars and academics agree that the whole story is just that, a story? Watch how it's either ignored or ridiculed by the apologist(s).

Lol. Anybody particular in mind? 

I post this because it gives a huge number of references, links and sources. No doubt some of it is controversial or based on exaggerations, but then so are theist claims. I mean flying chariots, unicorns, gigantic boats carrying huge numbers of animals, talking donkeys- all real because of the book they are in. 

[21CIconoclast]

The many things that Jesus wasn't in this treatise, but are in the bible as being allegedly true, are exactly the things that I use to make the pseudo-christian turn themselves into a pretzel.

Look at what happened to the token Catholic Randy relative to his faith, he was easily buried by his own bible and in his own thread of "Stump the Apologist" to the point where he had to exit stage right to save what minimal face he had left.

[stromboli]

The many things that Jesus wasn't in this treatise, but are in the bible as being allegedly true, are exactly the things that I use to make the pseudo-christian turn themselves into a pretzel.

Look at what happened to the token Catholic Randy relative to his faith, he was easily buried by his own bible and in his own thread of "Stump the Apologist" to the point where he had to exit stage right to save what minimal face he had left.

I'll withhold comment on Randy's presence, leave or return. He may be back. I've learned that when their (apologists) worldview is so colored and cognitive dissonance so strong that opposing viewpoints, however more obvious and logical, cannot sway them from their beliefs. I think we may yet see more of him.

[Flanker1Six]

I'll withhold comment on Randy's presence, leave or return. He may be back. I've learned that when their (apologists) worldview is so colored and cognitive dissonance so strong that opposing viewpoints, however more obvious and logical, cannot sway them from their beliefs. I think we may yet see more of him.

So....................what?   You're saying he's gonna come back from the dead??!! 

Yea..................I know...........................I'm a BAD person! 

[stromboli]

Lol. It doesn't matter. He isn't the first. They are all the same, mostly not rebuking the evidence given and ignoring it, or doing as Randy did and just hit you with a lot of apologetic evidence. The problem is with Jesus' existence and Creationism is that we've seen all or most of it, so rebutting isn't that hard. They don't change their mind, they just eventually leave. But he could be back. Might be combing every apologist site he can find and loading up with more "ammunition"

I've been on here for 6 years off and on, and I've seen like 3 people that actually realized they were wrong. They are a hard headed crew.

[Randy Carson]

http://www.kyroot.com/


(Stromboli heaps contents on fire, light metaphorical match, runs)

1,186 reasons. Have at it, y'all. In case you're having a slow day. 

John Dominic Crossan (Co-Founder, The Jesus Seminar)

Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus.” (John Dominic Crossan, Co-founder of The Jesus Seminar, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography,145.)

Marcus Borg (The Jesus Seminar)

“An examination of the claims for and against the historicity of Jesus thus reveals that the difficulties faced by those undertaking to prove that he is not historical, in the fields both of the history of religion and the history of doctrine, and not least in the interpretation of the earliest tradition are far more numerous and profound than those which face their opponents. Seen in their totality, they must be considered as having no possible solution. Added to this, all hypotheses which have so far been put forward to the effect that Jesus never lived are in the strangest opposition to each other, both in their method of working and their interpretation of the Gospel reports, and thus merely cancel each other out. Hence we must conclude that the supposition that Jesus did exist is exceedingly likely, whereas its converse is exceedingly unlikely. This does not mean that the latter will not be proposed again from time to time, just as the romantic view of the life of Jesus is also destined for immortality. It is even able to dress itself up with certain scholarly technique, and with a little skillful manipulation can have much influence on the mass of people. But as soon as it does more than engage in noisy polemics with ‘theology’ and hazards an attempt to produce real evidence, it immediately reveals itself to be an implausible hypothesis”â€"Marcus Borg and N. T. Wright “A Vision of the Christian Life”, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2007), 236

Robert J. Miller (The Jesus Seminar)

“We can be certain that Jesus really existed (despite a few highly motivated skeptics who refuse to be convinced), that he was a Jewish teacher in Galilee, and that he was crucified by the Roman government around 30 CE” (Robert J. Miller, The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics, Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 1999, p. 38.)

[Baruch]

So why Randy, do you use the writings of heretics ... does the Pope know?

[stromboli]

See? He's baack. 

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=10106.0

Was there a Jesus? Of course there was a Jesus â€" many!


The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua (the successor of Moses) otherwise known as Yehoshua (Yeshua) bin Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Iesous in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others.

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:

Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.

Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophecy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree â€" and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.

Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."

â€" Josephus, Wars 6.3.

Arrested and flogged by the Romans, Jesus ben Ananias was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.

Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias ("the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people" â€" Josephus, Life 12.66). When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.

Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.



But was there a crucified Jesus?

Certainly. Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach â€" at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls â€" dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.


But then with so many Jesuses could there not have been a Jesus of Nazareth?

The problem for this notion is that absolutely nothing at all corroborates the sacred biography and yet this 'greatest story' is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities. For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) â€" and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.

It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns. In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).

What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings â€" all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.

[stromboli]

So the Romans crucified hundreds of Jews, Nazareth as a city is not known to have existed until the 2nd century, there was not a tax levied and no census required, Galilee was not a roman province.

And the rest. Many of the aspects of Jesus including divine origin, birthed by a virgin, resurrected after 3 days- all borrowed from previous deities. One more time- Jesus of the bible may have been based on a real human, of which there were many to choose from, but biblical divine Jesus is an invention, a composite made up of various religious figures (look up Mithraism- a popular religion of the Roman soldiers borrowed from Persian sources)

And one more time. the reason we have Catholicism is because Constantine saw the value of borrowing his mother's religion and using it as a political tool to keep Rome together. It isn't divine, its politics.

[Randy Carson]

And one more time. the reason we have Catholicism is because Constantine saw the value of borrowing his mother's religion and using it as a political tool to keep Rome together. It isn't divine, its politics.

Is it your opinion that Catholicism did not exist prior to Constantine?

(Check my signature again before answering.)

[marom1963]

Is it your opinion that Catholicism did not exist prior to Constantine?

(Check my signature again before answering.)

The Catholicism that we know surely did not exist before Constantine - actually before Gregory the Great - but not in any form before Constantine. Constantine was the one who gave the Church its status as a national religion w/the full power of the imperium behind it. Remember - Rome was still THE World Power at the time (at least in the West).

[Randy Carson]

The Catholicism that we know surely did not exist before Constantine - actually before Gregory the Great - but not in any form before Constantine. Constantine was the one who gave the Church its status as a national religion w/the full power of the imperium behind it. Remember - Rome was still THE World Power at the time (at least in the West).

That has all the potency of saying that the United States that we know surely did not exist before World War II.

Or the marom1963 that we know today did not exist when he was five years old.

OF COURSE the Church has grown over the centuries. Jesus likened it to a seed that would grow up to be the largest of trees. See the development there?

"The trouble with this history is that there are no historical facts whatsoever to back it up. Distinctively Catholic beliefsâ€"the papacy, priesthood, invocation of saints, sacraments, veneration of Mary, salvation by something besides "faith alone," purgatoryâ€"were evident long before the fourth century, before Constantine. They were believed by Christians before this supposed "paganization" took place. Another difficulty is that there are no historical recordsâ€"none at allâ€"which imply an underground Fundamentalist church existed from the early fourth century to the Reformation. In those years there were many schisms and heresies, most now vanished, but present-day Fundamentalists cannot find among them their missing Fundamentalist church. There were no groups that believed in all or even most, of the doctrines espoused by the Protestant Reformers (e.g. sola scriptura, salvation by "faith alone," and an invisible church). No wonder Fundamentalist writers dislike discussing Church history!

"Since the Christian Church was to exist historically and be like a city set on a mountain for all to see (Matt. 5:14), it had to be visible and easily identifiable. A church that exists only in the hearts of believers is not visible and is more like the candle hidden under the bushel basket (Matt. 5:15). But any visible church would necessarily be an institutional church that would need an earthly head. It would need an authority to which Christians could turn for the final resolution of doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. Christ appointed Peter and his successors to that position.

"Christ designated Peter head of the Church when he said, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Fundamentalists, desiring to avoid the natural sense of the passage, say "rock" refers not to Peter, but to his profession of faith or to Christ himself. But Peter’s profession of faith is two sentences away and can’t be what is meant. Similarly, the reference can’t be to Christ. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a quite different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4â€"8) does not mean Peter was not appointed the earthly foundation. The apostles were also described as foundation stones in a sense (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), meaning that Christ is not the only person the Bible speaks of as being the Church’s foundation. In one sense the foundation was Christ, in another it was the apostles, and in another it was Peter. In Matthew 16:18 Christ has Peter in mind. He himself would be the Church’s invisible foundation since he was returning to heaven, from where he would invisibly rule the Church. He needed to leave behind a visible authority, one people could locate when searching for religious truth. That visible authority is the papacy."

Christian History
http://www.catholic.com/library/Fundamentalist_or_Catholic.asp

[marom1963]

That has all the potency of saying that the United States that we know surely did not exist before World War II.

Or the marom1963 that we know today did not exist when he was five years old.

OF COURSE the Church has grown over the centuries. Jesus likened it to a seed that would grow up to be the largest of trees. See the development there?

"The trouble with this history is that there are no historical facts whatsoever to back it up. Distinctively Catholic beliefsâ€"the papacy, priesthood, invocation of saints, sacraments, veneration of Mary, salvation by something besides "faith alone," purgatoryâ€"were evident long before the fourth century, before Constantine. They were believed by Christians before this supposed "paganization" took place. Another difficulty is that there are no historical recordsâ€"none at allâ€"which imply an underground Fundamentalist church existed from the early fourth century to the Reformation. In those years there were many schisms and heresies, most now vanished, but present-day Fundamentalists cannot find among them their missing Fundamentalist church. There were no groups that believed in all or even most, of the doctrines espoused by the Protestant Reformers (e.g. sola scriptura, salvation by "faith alone," and an invisible church). No wonder Fundamentalist writers dislike discussing Church history!

"Since the Christian Church was to exist historically and be like a city set on a mountain for all to see (Matt. 5:14), it had to be visible and easily identifiable. A church that exists only in the hearts of believers is not visible and is more like the candle hidden under the bushel basket (Matt. 5:15). But any visible church would necessarily be an institutional church that would need an earthly head. It would need an authority to which Christians could turn for the final resolution of doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. Christ appointed Peter and his successors to that position.

"Christ designated Peter head of the Church when he said, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Fundamentalists, desiring to avoid the natural sense of the passage, say "rock" refers not to Peter, but to his profession of faith or to Christ himself. But Peter’s profession of faith is two sentences away and can’t be what is meant. Similarly, the reference can’t be to Christ. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a quite different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4â€"8) does not mean Peter was not appointed the earthly foundation. The apostles were also described as foundation stones in a sense (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), meaning that Christ is not the only person the Bible speaks of as being the Church’s foundation. In one sense the foundation was Christ, in another it was the apostles, and in another it was Peter. In Matthew 16:18 Christ has Peter in mind. He himself would be the Church’s invisible foundation since he was returning to heaven, from where he would invisibly rule the Church. He needed to leave behind a visible authority, one people could locate when searching for religious truth. That visible authority is the papacy."

Christian History
http://www.catholic.com/library/Fundamentalist_or_Catholic.asp

Raspberries. The history is there to support my assertion. Constantine established a single faith at the Council of Nicea. He demanded and got an orthodoxy. Before that you had a pack of squabbling churches. Those who did not conform to Constantine's new orthodoxy were ruthlessly exterminated. The "pope" did not yet exist and would not exist until after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476. He was merely the Bishop of Rome and subservient to the emperor - as the patriarch in the east would remain until 1453 when the Eastern Roman Empire breathed its last. It was Gregory the Great who claimed and established an hegemony for the Bishop of Rome. He got it because Rome still had a cachet of glamor among the barbarian kings that then ruled in the west. That was how the papacy was established. It had little to do w/anything that Jesus said or did. The emperor in the east and the patriarch did not acknowledge the pope - and would not for 1400 years. No one outside of the Roman Catholic Church does!