They should have known better

[achilles12604]

.
The greatest event in history supposedly occurs, a thirty year visit from the “creator of the universe”, and believers can cite only church preachings and ONE outside source that is known to be at least partially false.

Something doesn’t ring true. Any discerning person should question the validity of and support for the story.

Agreed. But remember we are 2000 years out of date. Those discerning people with the best vantage point were those living in the area at the time. Strangely enough we see a couple of unduplicated phenomina occur right then.

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

2) Christianity suddenly errupts very shortly after it's leader is murdered. This is unique in world history as far as I know. I am unaware of any other religion surviving much less exploding after being persecuted and having their leader of only a couple years assassinated. All of the other religions who fit this pattern died off very shortly after the leader.

3) The people living in the area, who would have had the ability to know fact from legend, began believing in a very Jewish risen Jesus within just a year or so after Jesus murder (Nazarenes).



Now these things are unique especially because these people had the unique ability to KNOW BETTER. If you compare Christianity to Islam, Christianity claims that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the grave in full view of the public. Compare that with Muhammad who was totally alone in a cave and then only he came out and reported what he did. No one else was around to protest any lies.

This is a critical difference and it has major implications for the falsfiability and therefore validity of the religion in question.

This transaction occurred in the Was the TF inserted thread. And I find it to be a topic unto itself.


Is my view on this matter sound? I find that Christianity is unique because it is the only religion which allowed itself to be falsifiable to the original believers. Jesus didn't go into a cave and later come out to tell everyone what an angel said to him. He taught in the streets. His ministry was very public. And as such, the claims which followed very shortly after him would have been easily disproven.

So doesn't common sense tell us that if someone is making outrageous claims like those of miracles and rising from the dead, that the people right then and there would have been able to disprove and ignore the raving lunatic? How on earth could Christianity have convinced one of the world most stubborn religious people (the Jews) to adopt new ideas, and move into a totally new and different religion when their totally outrageous and absurd claims were so blatently and obviously false?

They should have known better.


Please evaluate the above 3 points of uniqueness and comment. Am I off my rocker? Are there other religions which can boast the same unique situations as Christianity? Do these situations have an impact on the verifiability and validity of Christian claims as a whole?

[Goat]

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

Have they changed their core beliefs? It was my assumption that they barely acknowledge Christ as a prophet and I understood that to be only PC. They have been divided much more since then and still persevere with their ancient roots.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was a prophet at all. The age of prophecy had actually ended with the diaspora hundreds of years earlier. There is no religious teaching about him, except for the disbelief in him being God.

Is there not some progressive forms of Judaism that do account for Him being a prophet?

No, there are some Christian groups that had adopted Jewish traditions, but they have in common that they all use the New Testament, and believe he is God. Most of those congregations can trace their start to evangelistic efforts by Christian groups.

So they are not TRUE JEWS. Isn't that just like saying LDS aren't TRUE CHRISTIANS?

well, they reject certain very important principles of the Jewish religion,
such as God as being spiritual, not physical. In other words, they are accepting
the primary principles of another religion as their guiding motivation. I wouldn't say that they are 'not True Jews' so much as I am saying 'They are true Christians'. Being of the Jewish faith and being of the Christian faith are mutually exclusive.

[Confused]

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

Have they changed their core beliefs? It was my assumption that they barely acknowledge Christ as a prophet and I understood that to be only PC. They have been divided much more since then and still persevere with their ancient roots.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was a prophet at all. The age of prophecy had actually ended with the diaspora hundreds of years earlier. There is no religious teaching about him, except for the disbelief in him being God.

Is there not some progressive forms of Judaism that do account for Him being a prophet?

No, there are some Christian groups that had adopted Jewish traditions, but they have in common that they all use the New Testament, and believe he is God. Most of those congregations can trace their start to evangelistic efforts by Christian groups.

So they are not TRUE JEWS. Isn't that just like saying LDS aren't TRUE CHRISTIANS?

well, they reject certain very important principles of the Jewish religion,
such as God as being spiritual, not physical. In other words, they are accepting
the primary principles of another religion as their guiding motivation. I wouldn't say that they are 'not True Jews' so much as I am saying 'They are true Christians'. Being of the Jewish faith and being of the Christian faith are mutually exclusive.

OK, I provided my resource, where is yours?

[Confused]

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

Have they changed their core beliefs? It was my assumption that they barely acknowledge Christ as a prophet and I understood that to be only PC. They have been divided much more since then and still persevere with their ancient roots.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was a prophet at all. The age of prophecy had actually ended with the diaspora hundreds of years earlier. There is no religious teaching about him, except for the disbelief in him being God.

Is there not some progressive forms of Judaism that do account for Him being a prophet?

No, there are some Christian groups that had adopted Jewish traditions, but they have in common that they all use the New Testament, and believe he is God. Most of those congregations can trace their start to evangelistic efforts by Christian groups.

So they are not TRUE JEWS. Isn't that just like saying LDS aren't TRUE CHRISTIANS?

well, they reject certain very important principles of the Jewish religion,
such as God as being spiritual, not physical. In other words, they are accepting
the primary principles of another religion as their guiding motivation. I wouldn't say that they are 'not True Jews' so much as I am saying 'They are true Christians'. Being of the Jewish faith and being of the Christian faith are mutually exclusive.

OK, I provided my resource, where is yours?

Mine shows Messianic Jews as seeing Jesus as a consequence of their teachings and accept Him.

[Goat]

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

Have they changed their core beliefs? It was my assumption that they barely acknowledge Christ as a prophet and I understood that to be only PC. They have been divided much more since then and still persevere with their ancient roots.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was a prophet at all. The age of prophecy had actually ended with the diaspora hundreds of years earlier. There is no religious teaching about him, except for the disbelief in him being God.

Is there not some progressive forms of Judaism that do account for Him being a prophet?

No, there are some Christian groups that had adopted Jewish traditions, but they have in common that they all use the New Testament, and believe he is God. Most of those congregations can trace their start to evangelistic efforts by Christian groups.

So they are not TRUE JEWS. Isn't that just like saying LDS aren't TRUE CHRISTIANS?

well, they reject certain very important principles of the Jewish religion,
such as God as being spiritual, not physical. In other words, they are accepting
the primary principles of another religion as their guiding motivation. I wouldn't say that they are 'not True Jews' so much as I am saying 'They are true Christians'. Being of the Jewish faith and being of the Christian faith are mutually exclusive.

OK, I provided my resource, where is yours?

Mine shows Messianic Jews as seeing Jesus as a consequence of their teachings and accept Him.

Mine shows that 'messanic jews' are Christians.

[Confused]

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

Have they changed their core beliefs? It was my assumption that they barely acknowledge Christ as a prophet and I understood that to be only PC. They have been divided much more since then and still persevere with their ancient roots.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was a prophet at all. The age of prophecy had actually ended with the diaspora hundreds of years earlier. There is no religious teaching about him, except for the disbelief in him being God.

Is there not some progressive forms of Judaism that do account for Him being a prophet?

No, there are some Christian groups that had adopted Jewish traditions, but they have in common that they all use the New Testament, and believe he is God. Most of those congregations can trace their start to evangelistic efforts by Christian groups.

So they are not TRUE JEWS. Isn't that just like saying LDS aren't TRUE CHRISTIANS?

well, they reject certain very important principles of the Jewish religion,
such as God as being spiritual, not physical. In other words, they are accepting
the primary principles of another religion as their guiding motivation. I wouldn't say that they are 'not True Jews' so much as I am saying 'They are true Christians'. Being of the Jewish faith and being of the Christian faith are mutually exclusive.

OK, I provided my resource, where is yours?

Mine shows Messianic Jews as seeing Jesus as a consequence of their teachings and accept Him.

Mine shows that 'messanic jews' are Christians.

LOL, you haven't shown yours and the source I listed (weak, yes, I know) differentiates between Christian Jews (Hebrew Christians) and Messianic Jews.

[achilles12604]

I find that Christianity is unique because it is the only religion which allowed itself to be falsifiable to the original believers. Jesus didn't go into a cave and later come out to tell everyone what an angel said to him. He taught in the streets. His ministry was very public.

But so much can be done in public that can carry a crowd; whilst everyone involved is living under a false consciousness of what is going on. We have faith healers who performs ministries on stage. And for every faith healer you will find their devoted believers. Bob Larson is on our TVs over here. He does exorcism. Again he has his own following. There seems to be plenty of people who swallows this stuff whole. So If Jesus were a real historical character then street preaching and “miracles” is not up for falsification for the original believers in the same way the folks who attend faith healings are not trying to falsify what they see, or even hear a negative word against.

I don't quite agree that today's soothsayers are not tested. I think they are. And as they have not passed the tests, their followings are small and unwilling to believe the tests. Remember the test that was conducted in hospitals to determine if prayer actually helped people and the study showed that those who knew they were being prayed for actually did WORSE than either of the two control groups?

Today's claims are tested. And generally they fail. I say that the claims made by early christians would have been even more known and available than today's preachers and soothsayers.

And as such, the claims which followed very shortly after him would have been easily disprove.

How come we’ve still got faith healers, how come Bob Larson? People believe what they want to believe. Regardless of reality or the evidence.

This is true enough. But I don't see Bob Larson performing any miracles which are testable or falsifiable. Now if he claimed to raise someone from the dead, or heal a blind man that could be a different story. But having an unknown member of HIS audience claim that they have a headache, and then ol Bob made it go away is hardly comparable with the claims made by the followers of Jesus.

The difference once again is falsifiability. Jesus claims were so outstanding that they were either true or false. There is no way to fake a dead person coming back to life. Ol Bob is able to fake his healings with just a tiny bit of cooperation.

I went to one of these healing thingys once. I was actually offended by the obvious forgery and most of the people around me were either bored, or a pissed as I was. This is hardly the right environment to spread the good news about what ever his name was abilities. And hence, he is small and unheard of.

On a LARGER and more important note, you are avoiding the little detail about comparing Jesus with the other so called messiah's of the time. Some of them claimed to be able to do little things like calling for rain. But these people can not have been to convincing as they didn't develop a following and one they were killed, their followers disappeared. So what do you think is the difference between these other guys and Jesus? Why even after his death did his following defy history and actually explode rather than disappearing?

So doesn't common sense tell us that if someone is making outrageous claims like those of miracles and rising from the dead, that the people right then and there would have been able to disprove and ignore the raving lunatic?

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Goebbels was a poor excise for a human being but he knew human beings and their weaknesses. And anyhow all this is from second hand reports after the event.

And how many people will believe a second hand account of someone being raised from the dead when according to Jewish beliefs the ONLY resurrection could occur at the end of time? Not only did this go against the knowledge of the people of the time, but it was a totally new and for them impossible idea. It would be like me telling you that I saw a guy teleport himself up to the roof of a 20 story building like in the new movie "Jumper".

How many people would believe me? How convincing would I be?

The more impossible the lie, no matter how many times it is told, the less likely it is to be believed by anyone. His comment is applicable to non-falsifiable lies. It is not applicable to lies which can easily be disproven.

How on earth could Christianity have convinced one of the world most stubborn religious people (the Jews) to adopt new ideas,

It did not convince “the Jews” it may have convinced the odd crowd. But as for most crowds only a few get to stand at the front. And how many Jews in total of who were there became followers? What’s the estimate number of Jewish born Christians per capita AD 10?

Good question. The Nazarenes numbered about 120 in Jerusalem immediately following Jesus resurrection. This is pretty good for a dead guy.

http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/nazarenes.html

How many other cults can boast 120 followers immediately claiming their leader rose from the dead after a public execution?

Outside of the bible, what evidence do you have that the 'Nazarenes' had 120 members at the death of Jesus.

[/quote]

What reason would the author have had for lying about such an insignificant detail in the middle of a much larger story? What does it add tot he story?

This comment strikes me more like a footnote than anything else.

[achilles12604]

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

Have they changed their core beliefs? It was my assumption that they barely acknowledge Christ as a prophet and I understood that to be only PC. They have been divided much more since then and still persevere with their ancient roots.

The ones who began following a dead teacher certainly broke from some of the traditional views. In fact the views they adopted were totally unprecidented. They really didn't have a model to follow as "resurrections" before this time were known as only the big one at the end of time. A small one man resurrection in the middle of history was foolishness as everyone knew the only resurrection would occur at the end of time.

2) Christianity suddenly errupts very shortly after it's leader is murdered. This is unique in world history as far as I know. I am unaware of any other religion surviving much less exploding after being persecuted and having their leader of only a couple years assassinated. All of the other religions who fit this pattern died off very shortly after the leader.

Hm, let see, shortly after the death of their leader, they were ridiculed and torn to pieces, literally, until the official state religion was deemed Christianity (Catholicism, take your pick) at which point any non converts were massacred. Seems to me that it makes sense it would grow exponentially.

Point about catholocism taken. But remember that this didn't occur for 300 years. Up to this point it was the Christians who were at risk.

Now doesn't your thought work backwards here? If the Christians were the new kids on the block, AND they were the ones breaking the laws and being persecuted for it, and thier leader had been massacred by the Romans after just a couple years of teaching, shouldn't all common sense tell us that the religion would have failed unless it indeed did have solid roots for the original believers to hold on to?

3) The people living in the area, who would have had the ability to know fact from legend, began believing in a very Jewish risen Jesus within just a year or so after Jesus murder (Nazarenes).

Or they just feared for their life.

Exactly. Thank you.

They feared for their lives. So why would they have done so if they had no proof that they were right? If the stories about Jesus were all lies, why would they hold to beliefs like this when they lived there during the times and KNEW better?

[Confused]

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

Have they changed their core beliefs? It was my assumption that they barely acknowledge Christ as a prophet and I understood that to be only PC. They have been divided much more since then and still persevere with their ancient roots.

The ones who began following a dead teacher certainly broke from some of the traditional views. In fact the views they adopted were totally unprecidented. They really didn't have a model to follow as "resurrections" before this time were known as only the big one at the end of time. A small one man resurrection in the middle of history was foolishness as everyone knew the only resurrection would occur at the end of time.

Care to show me where it can tell me that those who adopted these views held traditional views, originally, before they were made to? Maybe they were pagans who thought this was easier than worshiping multiple Gods.

2) Christianity suddenly errupts very shortly after it's leader is murdered. This is unique in world history as far as I know. I am unaware of any other religion surviving much less exploding after being persecuted and having their leader of only a couple years assassinated. All of the other religions who fit this pattern died off very shortly after the leader.

Hm, let see, shortly after the death of their leader, they were ridiculed and torn to pieces, literally, until the official state religion was deemed Christianity (Catholicism, take your pick) at which point any non converts were massacred. Seems to me that it makes sense it would grow exponentially.

Point about catholocism taken. But remember that this didn't occur for 300 years. Up to this point it was the Christians who were at risk.

Now doesn't your thought work backwards here? If the Christians were the new kids on the block, AND they were the ones breaking the laws and being persecuted for it, and thier leader had been massacred by the Romans after just a couple years of teaching, shouldn't all common sense tell us that the religion would have failed unless it indeed did have solid roots for the original believers to hold on to?

Had it not been made a state religion, you would have a case. But having it be made so, it is impossible to say what would have happened. Your grasping at pure speculation working backwards like that.

3) The people living in the area, who would have had the ability to know fact from legend, began believing in a very Jewish risen Jesus within just a year or so after Jesus murder (Nazarenes).

Or they just feared for their life.

Exactly. Thank you.

They feared for their lives. So why would they have done so if they had no proof that they were right? If the stories about Jesus were all lies, why would they hold to beliefs like this when they lived there during the times and KNEW better?

You missed my point. You cannot say that Christianity would have persevered had it not been made the official religion with threats of excommunication or death if you didn't conform.

[achilles12604]

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

Have they changed their core beliefs? It was my assumption that they barely acknowledge Christ as a prophet and I understood that to be only PC. They have been divided much more since then and still persevere with their ancient roots.

The ones who began following a dead teacher certainly broke from some of the traditional views. In fact the views they adopted were totally unprecidented. They really didn't have a model to follow as "resurrections" before this time were known as only the big one at the end of time. A small one man resurrection in the middle of history was foolishness as everyone knew the only resurrection would occur at the end of time.

Care to show me where it can tell me that those who adopted these views held traditional views, originally, before they were made to? Maybe they were pagans who thought this was easier than worshiping multiple Gods.

HERE

and

HERE

and

HERE

and

HERE

2) Christianity suddenly errupts very shortly after it's leader is murdered. This is unique in world history as far as I know. I am unaware of any other religion surviving much less exploding after being persecuted and having their leader of only a couple years assassinated. All of the other religions who fit this pattern died off very shortly after the leader.

Hm, let see, shortly after the death of their leader, they were ridiculed and torn to pieces, literally, until the official state religion was deemed Christianity (Catholicism, take your pick) at which point any non converts were massacred. Seems to me that it makes sense it would grow exponentially.

Point about catholocism taken. But remember that this didn't occur for 300 years. Up to this point it was the Christians who were at risk.

Now doesn't your thought work backwards here? If the Christians were the new kids on the block, AND they were the ones breaking the laws and being persecuted for it, and thier leader had been massacred by the Romans after just a couple years of teaching, shouldn't all common sense tell us that the religion would have failed unless it indeed did have solid roots for the original believers to hold on to?

Had it not been made a state religion, you would have a case. But having it be made so, it is impossible to say what would have happened. Your grasping at pure speculation working backwards like that.

Not at all.

Let's imagine for a moment that Christianity ends right before it is made a state religion.

You would still need to explain how the original followers managed to

1) Believe such a load of bullox since they were standing in Jerusalem during the time

2) Managed to spread the religion enough for Tacitus to take note of it in 116 AD.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.[3]

The Christian church would remain outlawed for another 200 years after this.

So your argument of the Catholic church exploding the church is out of date by at least 200 years. It frankly doesn't apply.

And besides, I was talking about the original believers. Those who lived in Jerusalem and as the OP states, "Should have known better."

3) The people living in the area, who would have had the ability to know fact from legend, began believing in a very Jewish risen Jesus within just a year or so after Jesus murder (Nazarenes).

Or they just feared for their life.

Exactly. Thank you.

They feared for their lives. So why would they have done so if they had no proof that they were right? If the stories about Jesus were all lies, why would they hold to beliefs like this when they lived there during the times and KNEW better?

You missed my point. You cannot say that Christianity would have persevered had it not been made the official religion with threats of excommunication or death if you didn't conform.

Yes I can. See above.

[Confused]

1) The Jews who historically didn't change their core religious beliefs despite being split up, conqured, and accosted for several thousand years suddenly are divided and believing in notions which before this time had never been heard of, much less accepted.

Have they changed their core beliefs? It was my assumption that they barely acknowledge Christ as a prophet and I understood that to be only PC. They have been divided much more since then and still persevere with their ancient roots.

The ones who began following a dead teacher certainly broke from some of the traditional views. In fact the views they adopted were totally unprecidented. They really didn't have a model to follow as "resurrections" before this time were known as only the big one at the end of time. A small one man resurrection in the middle of history was foolishness as everyone knew the only resurrection would occur at the end of time.

Care to show me where it can tell me that those who adopted these views held traditional views, originally, before they were made to? Maybe they were pagans who thought this was easier than worshiping multiple Gods.

HERE

and

HERE

and

HERE

and

HERE

Darn, I keep forgetting you use scripture to validate scripture. Your only other source here suggests Josephus, which hasn't been proven, Papias, who we have no writings of, and church elders.

2) Christianity suddenly errupts very shortly after it's leader is murdered. This is unique in world history as far as I know. I am unaware of any other religion surviving much less exploding after being persecuted and having their leader of only a couple years assassinated. All of the other religions who fit this pattern died off very shortly after the leader.

Hm, let see, shortly after the death of their leader, they were ridiculed and torn to pieces, literally, until the official state religion was deemed Christianity (Catholicism, take your pick) at which point any non converts were massacred. Seems to me that it makes sense it would grow exponentially.

Point about catholocism taken. But remember that this didn't occur for 300 years. Up to this point it was the Christians who were at risk.

Now doesn't your thought work backwards here? If the Christians were the new kids on the block, AND they were the ones breaking the laws and being persecuted for it, and thier leader had been massacred by the Romans after just a couple years of teaching, shouldn't all common sense tell us that the religion would have failed unless it indeed did have solid roots for the original believers to hold on to?

Had it not been made a state religion, you would have a case. But having it be made so, it is impossible to say what would have happened. Your grasping at pure speculation working backwards like that.

Not at all.

Let's imagine for a moment that Christianity ends right before it is made a state religion.

Can't.

You would still need to explain how the original followers managed to

1) Believe such a load of bullox since they were standing in Jerusalem during the time

Charismatic sociopaths have gained quite a few following on their own. If he was preaching to those already miserable, why not follow an ordinary man and then make him extraordinary?

2) Managed to spread the religion enough for Tacitus to take note of it in 116 AD.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.[3]

The Christian church would remain outlawed for another 200 years after this.

So your argument of the Catholic church exploding the church is out of date by at least 200 years. It frankly doesn't apply.

And besides, I was talking about the original believers. Those who lived in Jerusalem and as the OP states, "Should have known better."

Explain how no first hand accounts exist. If you want to refer to the "original believers" then let me hear one of their accounts. In their own penmanship, or is this an unreasonable, illogical request for impossible evidence?

3) The people living in the area, who would have had the ability to know fact from legend, began believing in a very Jewish risen Jesus within just a year or so after Jesus murder (Nazarenes).

Or they just feared for their life.

Exactly. Thank you.

They feared for their lives. So why would they have done so if they had no proof that they were right? If the stories about Jesus were all lies, why would they hold to beliefs like this when they lived there during the times and KNEW better?

You missed my point. You cannot say that Christianity would have persevered had it not been made the official religion with threats of excommunication or death if you didn't conform.

Yes I can. See above.

Did. Thanks.