The basis for Christianity

Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
The basis for Christianity

Christianity is not based on a philosophy or a belief but is founded completely on a person called Jesus Christ.  Whether you like it or not, you must admit that this man has made any other name in history pale by comparison when measured by his affect on the world.  Now I realize that by reading just a little from your website that you believe it to be a negative affect.  But are you willing to objectively look at evidence?  If not, then who can enlighten you?  Your mind has decided something based on what you already know.  There are so many people that have had negative experiences with what is called religion and have concluded that it all must be tossed out.  I want to be clear that I am not writing of religion but of a man that made incredible claims about himself.  Again, are you willing to look at the evidence?  I can only give a little here due to length but I am asking any honest seekers to consider these points and their implications.  To those who state there was never any such man as Jesus Christ I say this: you have simply not been a good student of history and you may be listening to other bad students.  As you may know the Romans were no friend to Christianity, yet one of Ancient Rome's greatest historians, Cornelius Tacitus, wrote the "Annals" and the "Histories" and wrote of Christus [common misspelling of Christ at the time] and his death ordered under Pontius Pilate.  There was also Seutonius, another Roman historian who wrote "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [another spelling of Christus], he expelled them from Rome."  The author Luke references this event in Acts 18:2.  There are several other non-Christian historians that reference the life of Jesus Christ into which any honest seeker should look.  There are Jewish historians that wrote of Christ.  Again, the Jews being no friends to Christianity at the time, provide a reliable witness to the life of the man Jesus Christ.  In the Babylonian Talmud it is written "It has been taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu.  and an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying): 'He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray.  Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.'  But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover" (Sanhedrin 43a; cf. t. Sanh. 10:11; y. Sanh. 7:12; Tg. Esther 7:9.)  Yeshu translates through Greek to English as "Jesus".  Hanged is another way of referring to crucifixion (Luke 23:39, Galations 3:13).  The Jewish historian Josephus wrote, in "Jewish Antiquities", of Jesus.  And there are obviously many references to Jesus in the New Testament record.  Many ask the question, is the New Testament a reliable historical document?  Forget about whether you think it is inspired or not.  Is it reliable?  Well one of the tests for historical documents, since we don't have the originals, is how reliable are the copies that we have.  The more copies and the older the copies then the more reliable the documents is considered.  For example, Homer's Iliad has 643 manuscripts still surviving.  The first complete preserved text of Iliad is from the 13 th century.  By comparison, there are more than 5,686 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.  To that add more than 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions.  That means that we have close to 25,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament today.  No other document of antiquity even comes close (Homer's Iliad is 2nd).  For time's sake I must cut this short, but here is the message.  If you want to know the truth about the reliability of the accuracy of the historical text of the Bible it is available.  Now here's the question:  what difference does it make?  Back to the foundation for Christianity; it is founded completely on the person of Jesus Christ.  If you examine history and conclude that he really existed and if you examine the Bible and conclude that the text we currently have is an accurate record of the original text, then some astounding claims come forward for examination.  Clearly Jesus Christ made claims to being God and from the Biblical text performed enough miracles so that those that followed him believed his claims.  So much so that after his death and in the following years that most of them were martyred for their stated beliefs: that Jesus Christ raised himself from the dead.  These men allowed themselves to be put to death instead of recanting their belief in a Jesus risen from the dead.  Some have tried to explain the resurrection away by various theories - he lost consciousness, he pretended to be dead, etc.  Again, any good student of history will realize how proficient the Romans were at killing.  They knew a dead man when they saw him.  Just in case there was any doubt, they thrust a spear into his side just to make sure.   And could a man almost beaten to death get himself out of a tomb sealed by a large stone?  Would 11 frightened disciples have the nerve to overcome 4 Roman guards and release him or even steal his body?  Would 4 professional soldiers allow him to disappear or to be stolen?  Evidence says no.  And after all that, the risen Jesus showed himself to over 500 people before leaving this earth.  So here is my point again, you may not believe all this, but have you honestly considered the evidence?  Again, what difference does it make?  This Jesus taught that he was the only way to get to God.  You don't need me to quote scripture to you to confirm this, the New Testament is full of these quotes that any honest seeker will read for themselves (start with John 14:6).  You say there is no God.  Let me ask you one philosophical question.  Can any man or woman, who inarguably has limited knowledge, make an absolute statement about the seemingly infinite universe to the point where you can reasonably say there is no such thing as an infinite being?  How can you?  It is the equivalent to saying "There is no such thing in the universe as a black rock with round white spots all over it."  The obvious question is "How do you know?"  Do you believe there's life on other planets?  I imagine a lot of your readers will say yes.  Does it strike you as odd that we can believe that and with the same brain state "there is no God".  You may ask me the same question - how can you, as a being with limited knowledge, make the statement that there is a God and more than that, he made himself known as the man Jesus Christ.  I make that statement based on the evidence that the man Jesus Christ gave us.  He is a historical figure, he walked here on earth, a reliable text exists today that gives evidence of his life and miracles. And yes, one more thing, he radically changed my life, giving me purpose and direction where there was none worth living for.  God has put eternity in my heart and I could not get satisfied until I put myself aside and found something higher and greater.  You may ask, why do you say there is only one thing higher and greater worth living for.  Because God said it and it is absolute truth, revealed by God through Jesus Christ.  Examine the evidence for yourself.  I took the time to write this because I care deeply for you and your journey.  The Bible is the story of God's "hot pursuit of man".  He loves you and has provided a way for you to get to him, through the man, his son, Jesus Christ.


I wish to give as a reference a book by Josh McDowell: "The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict".  I highly recommend it for those seeking truth.

Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I suggest you read my

I suggest you read my thread called the history of God. You are essentially inciting a time-lapse effect, whereby religion becomes more accepted as time passes. When Jesus first came to light, he was scorned completely. We have no evidence other than the very dubious accounts of the Bible of his popularity, or whether he performed actual miracles. Christianity as a religion did not come to fruition until almost 400AD. Jesus, after all, was Jewish. He intended no breakaway sect. I cant believe you actually accept the Bible as true...simply because of the "evidence" from the Bible. Again, you should read my thread to understand better how the book was collated. What makes the Biblical story different from any ancient myth? Why is it that no one in Modern greece believes in the stories of Medusa and Athena?

The Bible in and of itself is absolutely worthless evidence for the events it cites. It's stories were passed almost entirely by word of mouth, which like chinese whispers, became more and more untrue as time passed. The Bible is no more trustworthy than a Greek myth book or the Quran, or the Buddhist texts. It is good literacy, but from an empiracal truth based standpoint it is worthless garbage.


There is no more evidence that Jesus was the son of god than there is evidence that muhammed flew to heaven on his winged horse.

What makes the bible different from any collation of ancient fables? The fact that it says that it is true? If you choose to rely on that kind of circular reasoning fallacy, I will take this even less seriously then I do now (and seriously, I have read the Torah, the Qur'an, and the Bible, and they are all worthless)


You are a human being in an age of extraordinary scientific advancement, reason and inquiry. Are you not embaressed to be propogating a 2000 year old book of myths as a source of truth? I am extremely proud to be a member of the scientific community because we are the people who push the frontiers of what man can do. Religion, what does that have to offer people? How is religion "knowledge" "truth" or "logical" in any way that could not be construed as insults to such concepts?


Most of the doctrine of the Bible was conjured out of thin air long after Jesus died. All of it is pure and utter rubbish that simply became accepted due to the religious time lapse theory that states that the more time that has passed that something happened, the more accepted it is. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.


Books about atheism