125 posts / 0 new
Last post
ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture

At random times throughout my stay in the forum, I've encountered comments that left me thinking; comments which seem to only be half-baked. So, I would like to hear from those who have made such comments what the other half is.

By this I'm referring to the comments which try to falsify random things in Christian history. Comments which say Jesus never exist. Comments which say the gospels weren't written by the apostles. Comments which say the Bible wasn't the Bible until some council decided on it. As well as comments that many fundamental beliefs didn't appear until much later. Every single one of those types of comments, aims to destroy something fundamental in the church's history, without forwarding something in its place. It leaves an informational gap.

There's almost two billion Christians alive today, and most of recent history has danced intimately with the Christianity. So, what exactly is the proposed origins of Christianity, if most of the traditional view is considered fabricated, exaggerated, or nonexistent?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

chimp3's picture
Regardless of the historical

Regardless of the historical details, Christianity is like every other religion. Created by humans.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Then substantiate that

Then substantiate that position, by responding to the OP, and showing how humans created it.

Sheldon's picture
Why bother scouring the

Why bother scouring the oceans to disprove mermaids are hiding in there.

Just cut straight to the chase and show your best evidence that christianity unlike the thousands of other religions and deities is not man made.

Take your time....

I'm assuming you already accept the fact humans exist, and create fictional deities.

mickron88's picture
i think chimp..maybe breezy

i think chimp..maybe breezy is trying to say is his basis of christianity is on numbers..

actually breezy Christianity now deflating on numbers...

still the same..a lot of christians doesn't agree with just one belief..."i don't like this church so i'll go for born again, oh no, that other group is better cause they give freebies"'re all christians why can't you just be united if you think christianity is genuinely intervene by god?? which god anyway?? you confuse me..really

chimp3's picture
Storytelling, lies, creating

Storytelling, lies, creating rituals, consolidating power into priesthoods. Same as every other religion.

chimp3's picture
We only need to look at how

We only need to look at how religions are perpetuated to see the creation of religion in real time. If Christians stopped spreading the religion it would die from neglect. Created and sustained by primates afraid of death.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
The perpetuation of a

The perpetuation of a religion, and the creation of one are two separate events. In the Gospels we have an account of the origins of Christianity, and in Acts we have an account of the perpetuation of Christianity. Which is why when the traditional and biblical origins of Christianity are considered fabrications, it leaves me wondering what the alternative is.

chimp3's picture
We have plenty of evidence

We have plenty of evidence that religions evolve from older myths and religions. Christianity is no different. No different than Mormonism. The lack of historical data revealing its human origin is no reason to beg the god question.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Great, but clearly you can

Great, but clearly you can see how that doesn't address the OP. If you have plenty of evidence about the origins of Christianity, then present it, or at least give a quick synopsis of it.

For example, if its non different from Mormonism, then are you saying Jesus did in fact exist, since no one argues the existance of Joseph Smith?

Sapporo's picture
Joseph Smith wouldn't be a

Joseph Smith wouldn't be a comparable figure, as he wasn't considered a divinity. What is disputed in regards both Mormonism and Christianity are the supernatural claims. But in Christianity, the evidence for a historical Jesus is also disputed.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
So, I'm not necessarily

So, I'm not necessarily interested in the supernatural claims, as much as I am the traditional timeline. Jesus being divine or not doesn't interest me necessarily. However, the results of a supernatural events such as Pentecost, which had a direct effect on the traditional narrative, does need to be accounted for.

That event is said to have converted some three thousand people, which proceeded to take the gospel back to their own countries and cities. It was a pivotal moment for the spreading of the gospel. So, if we are going to assume that miracle never occurred, then how were the same results reached? And if the whole story and the entire book of Acts is fiction, then what is the alterative explanation of how Christianity spread?

Sheldon's picture
"However, the results of a

"However, the results of a supernatural events such as Pentecost, which had a direct effect on the traditional narrative, does need to be accounted for."

No it doesn't you're using argumentum ad ignorantiam. Demonstrate some objective evidence that something supernatural occurred.

"So, if we are going to assume that miracle never occurred, "

That's not an assumption, it's a given until someone properly evidences something supernatural. Since I've been on here your posts relentlessly try to reverse the burden of proof, it's as if you think we won't notice. If you're going to claim a miracle occurred then you have the burden of proof, no one is obliged to offer any alternatives to unevidenced claims for miracles, as Hitchens's razor applies.

Dave Matson's picture
@John 61X Breezy

@John 61X Breezy

Earliest Christianity was still a Jewish group and had access to the various Jewish communities scattered around the Mediterranean. The early spread of Christianity was hardly spectacular and certainly offers no difficulties to rational thought.

What makes you think that the Pentecost story is reliable? Couldn't it be wholly fabricated or greatly doctored up? One need not assume that all the stories about Paul's travels were pure fiction. On the other hand, Acts does have some serious cracks in it and can't be taken as unvarnished history.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Well I'm not really

Well I'm not really interested in the reliability of the stories. I'm more interested in the narrative position they hold. So for example, if legend has it that Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity, but we now conclude that Benjamin Franklin never existed, we would be left with missing information as to who discovered electricity.

Dave Matson's picture
@John 61X Breezy

@John 61X Breezy

You need to talk to an expert on the origins of Christianity, not us. We can't give you the details you seek. Maybe you could do some research on the Internet.

Legends need not trace back to a real person. Think of Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill. Then there's Casey Jones. Usually, new religions borrow heavily from older religions. Thus, Mormonism essentially borrows the trappings of traditional Christianity. Then they add their own marks such as golden tablets. Most of the ideas and images associated with Christianity are borrowed from the pagan world. Christianity also borrowed heavily from Judaism being that the first "Christians" were really a Jewish sect.

Paul, the earliest Christian writer, knows nothing of the Jesus stories in the Gospels. He seems to be fixed on a rather distant Jesus who may have been no more real than a pagan god. Jesus got "historical" in the Gospels. For all we know the basics of Christianity, following pagan and/or Jewish motifs, were already in place a 100 years before the latest wrinkle (the Gospel tradition) arose. Maybe some fellow, now known as Jesus, inserted himself into Paul's religion and won a following. I'm not saying that this is how it happened, but I am saying that origins can be a complicated subject with unexpected twists. You should be careful about drawing simple conclusions.

My view on Jesus is that he is plausible but not historical. There is just not enough real evidence. As for the Gospels, study what serious scholars have to say and you will (hopefully) understand why they can't be taken as historical narratives.

Sheldon's picture
So what? we'd still

So what? we'd still understand electricity as who discovered it lends no credence to what we know about it, so if it turned out it was someone else it wouldn't matter.

Not being able to demonstrate any objective evidence that Jesus was real hardly seems credible if it was the most important event ever, and an omniscient omnipotent deity cares that we believe he took human form 2000 years ago, after 150 to 200 thousand years of inexplicably sitting on it's hands, and before that 100's of millions of years tinkering with dinosaur evolution.

chimp3's picture
We have evidence Joseph Smith

We have evidence Joseph Smith existed but not the Angel Moroni. As of now, I put Jesus in the category of the Angel Moroni. If we ever find enough evidence of a man representing Jesus it would not prove the childish notions of his virgin conception, returning from death, or his divine nature.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Again, I'm not really

Again, I'm not really interested in what you think is false, I'm interested in what you're replacing it with. I can say the founding fathers never existed, but then I'm left with the task of explaining the origins of the United States. We know for certain the US exists, and we also know for certain that Christianity exists. So given that Jesus is such a central pillar to the formation of Christianity, what are you replacing him with, if he's as nonexistent as the Angel Moroni?

I hope that what I'm asking for makes sense.

chimp3's picture
Historians are hard at it,

Historians are hard at it, Breezy! Not me! No matter to me whether an actual Jesus lived or not.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Fair enough.

Fair enough.

Sheldon's picture
Again you're using argumentum

Again you're using argumentum ad ignorantiam. Anyone making a claim has a burden of proof. Anyone rejecting it as improperly evidenced does not.

Dave Matson's picture
@John 61X Breezy

@John 61X Breezy

Serious Bible scholars know that the 4 gospels are not historical narratives, either directly by eyewitnesses or indirectly. The subject is too lengthy to get into, so I recommend that you start reading up on what real Bible scholars know about the Gospels and Acts. Start with the NOAB (New Oxford Annotated Bible) for a basic but decent overview. More detailed commentary can be found in The Anchor Bible (many volumes) if you are near a large library or can find it on the Internet.

Christianity originated as another Jewish sect. In its earliest phase it was incredibly diverse. I believe one sect had no need for the supposed resurrection; another branch (Gnostics) thought that the god of the Old Testament was evil. Later purges and consolidations under Emperor Constantine squeezed out this diversity.

sjewins's picture
The earliest gospel, Mark,

The earliest gospel, Mark, was written about 40 years after the supposed death of the Jesus character so the apostles were likely dead by then. Paul began inventing Christianity 10 to 20 years after the death of Jesus and wrote his letters over a span of 20 or so years. The last gospel, John, was written as late as 120 to 140 years after the death of Jesus so there is no way that it was written by the apostle John.

Sheldon's picture
There you go again with your

There you go again with your well researched objective evidence and iron clad logic....this'll never do.

Mystery and Maaaagiiccc....that's what the people want.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Breezy - Comments which say

Breezy - Comments which say the gospels weren't written by the apostles.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible - neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk 1.4; Jn 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teaching.


Columbia College - All four Gospels—the Greek word for gospel is euangelion, which literally means “good news”—in the New Testament, despite their titles, were written anonymously. In the second and third centuries, however, Christians began to associate the authorship of these anonymously written gospels with particular figures in the early Christian movement. While these attributions remain affixed to the canonical gospels down to the present day, their historical veracity is unclear.

CyberLN's picture
I’m going to comment only on

I’m going to comment only on the title of the OP. It makes me chuckle.

History SHOULD be revised when it is wrong.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I've never argued against

I've never argued against that. In fact the body of the OP is an invitation to do so.

mykcob4's picture
It's already been covered

It's already been covered Breezy!

Sapporo's picture
To what extent would people

To what extent would people here say the following are historical individuals?:
Sun Tzu
James, son of Alphaeus
King Arthur
Robin Hood
William Shakespeare

some other individuals, the first two I decided not to include before, the rest I just thought of:
Jack the Ripper
the Zodiac Killer
Tank Man

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I like this question.

I like this question.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.