Simple Test to Disprove Christianity

[boatsnguitars]

1. Find Christians who claim to have a relationship with Jesus
2. Ask them individually a series of questions
3. Compare the answers.
4. If the answers don't line up, then it shows that Christians don't have a relationship with Jesus.
5. The most likely answer is that Jesus doesn't exist in the way Christians claim.

Some questions:
A. What was your favorite food as a child, Jesus?
B. What should America do about it's National Debt, if anything? What steps should be done to reduce it, or should it be reduced at all?
C. Where is my great-great-great-great-grandmother buried?
D. Are both Hitler and Anne Frank in Heaven?
E. What is the 1 billionth digit in Pi?

These are samples of questions that could be compared. (Obviously, you'd want a double-blind study, etc.)

Objections:

1. "Jesus/God doesn't work that way!"
This is obvious to non-believers, since it's exactly what you'd expect from a non-existent person in a "relationship". However, Christians who claim to have a relationship with Jesus are often heard all the ways Jesus talks to them:
"I was drinkin' and druggin' and bein' all bad, and I asked Jesus, "Jesus, should I stop all this self-destructive behavior?", and he said, "Yes.""
"I was unemployed, surfin' on my Mom's couch and she was naggin' me, so I prayed to Jesus, "Jesus, should I get a job?", and I heard him clear as a bell, "Yes"."

So, this is very simple. Ask Jesus better questions, otherwise, it appears Jesus is no better than an incel's mother telling him to get a job. We expect more from our deities, no?

2. "Well, not all Christians are being honest about their relationship with Jesus"
This is certain. Christians of all stripes lie about Jesus. There's a reason there are over 10,000 denominations, many of those led by men (usually men) who claim to have had a revelation from Jesus to start their church. The Pope, Fred Phelps, Marcion, etc. They've all claimed to have a relationship with Jesus in some way - and they've all been either lying, or Jesus is telling them different answers (so much for not being the author of confusion!).
In fact, can't we sum up all religions as started by liars?
Aren't all people stained by Original Sin and liars? Aren't 99% of all religions automatically wrong - started by liars? Why do we simply accept the claims of one person over another?

3. "OK, maybe everyone is a liar, except me! If I can answer all those questions correctly, then Christianity must be true."
Not so fast. Sure, if one person answered all the questions correctly, we'd have a data point. But with over 1 billion Christians in the world, we'd expect 1 person to randomly get it right.
Besides, Christianity claims - in it's own book (unless it's a lie) - that Jesus DESIRES a relationship with us. If only one person can answer those questions (that could also be answered randomly), that doesn't support the claims of Christianity.

4. "You can't test God!"
(Why not? How convenient!) But, we're not really testing God - we're testing the people's claims of having a relationship with Jesus. After all, Christians want us to accept that Jesus has told them x, y, z, and that's why we can't have Gay Marriage, or eat meat on Friday, or have premarital sex, etc. In other words, see #1, they are more than happy to tell us Jesus has spoken with them and told them the 'facts" (yet, Chrtistians disagree). This is exactly what you'd expect from a false religion.

Conclusion:
This is a simple test. Almost stupidly simple. Committed Christians will do everything they can to avoid ever having to take this test - which belies their motivation.
This would be perfectly normal in a real relationship. If you wanted to know if Warren Buffet existed (or if people who claimed to know him, actually knew him), you could simply ask a series of questions. The people who answer the same, and answer what only Buffet would know, are most likely the ones in a relationship with Buffet.
The fact is, there is no difference between "Christians relationship with Jesus" and "There is no Jesus".

Bonus round:
Not all religions claim to have this kind of relationship with God. Thus, making those religions more likely true (or, at least, more difficult to prove the negative; that they aren't true).
Therefore, if Christians want to make Pascal's Wager, they should pick a different religion.

Are any Christians here willing to take the test? Wouldn't you like to know if Jesus is real - or which Christians are false?

Important Note:
This test highlights not only why Christianity is false, but shows how vastly different our world would be if it were true.
If Christianity were true, and Jesus/God had actual relationships with the millions of people who claim to have this relationship, we'd see a vast agreement from all those Christians on all kinds of issues. Politics, parenting, science, math, etc: All these would be supercharged if we could tap into the knowledge of God.

Our legal system: "Jesus, did he kill his wife? No? OK, sir, you are free to go. We've been told it's your neighbor."

Parenting: "Should I spank my children? Oh, you say one of them will learn from it but the other will be forever scarred emotionally and never be able to form meaningful relationships? Wow, thanks, Jesus?"

I know Christians will claim Jesus doesn't want to give us the answers. But this is just an excuse - and a lie - since they claim Jesus does, in fact, give them answers on a number of things when it comes to them personally, or things that involve the culture war. How many Christians are convinced Jesus doesn't like abortion - despite those babies getting a free trip to God, without any of the pain and agony in this mortal life? (As one of many examples)

Thoughts?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #80]

Are you aware that Atheists have provided answers according to our 'belief system' and would you be able to give them satisfactory description?

No, you have not, or anyone else. What was that answer I seemed to have missed it?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #80]

Are you aware that Atheists have provided answers according to our 'belief system' and would you be able to give them satisfactory description?

No, you have not, or anyone else. What was that answer I seemed to have missed it?

You are clearly not a serious person, or very, very ignorant since it would be easier to Google responses to the Rez than what you just typed as a response.

But, I am not fond of ignorance and try to cure it where I can.

Here is some reading material that you will ignore, but you can no longer claim atheists have not given you arguments against the Rez according to their world view:

https://www.gcrr.org/post/rebuffing-and ... -s-article
https://www.shermjournal.org/_files/ugd ... 894ee5.pdf

Can you now promise that you will never say again that atheists haven't provided answers? (To be clear, I think you are lying - that you have been given many answers - but I will be the bigger person here and assume you truly are ignorant of any answer to the Rez claims.)


(Note: Please note that not one Christian is willing to take my challenge of testing their relationship with Jesus.)

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #0]

Can you now promise that you will never say again that atheists haven't provided answers? (To be clear, I think you are lying - that you have been given many answers - but I will be the bigger person here and assume you truly are ignorant of any answer to the Rez claims.)

Oh my, you are really funny. If this is the best that you have then they really do not have any answers.

1st. Let's look at the articles you "cited".

• Your first "source" was an uncited book review. Very impressive.

• Your second "source" was the conclusion of the book from the book review.

So you basically have one source.

So let's look at your source and see if Cavin and Colombetti's argument holds any water.

1st they are defending the legendary hypothesis. One of the poorer choices in my opinion but it is their argument.

• The hypothesis that Cavin and Colombetti favor is called the legend hypothesis, and could be stated like this:
  
  Hypothesis 2: After Jesus died, a (false) legend emerged that he had been resurrected. Many people, including the apostles, believed it. This legend morphed over time and grew to include fabricated details intended to answer skeptics.

• So Cavin and Colombetti are saying that a legend formed. How long does it take a legend to form? 30, 40, 50 years. And then they say that over time more details were added.

I am really surprised that they chose the legend hypothesis because this has been totally refuted some time years ago. But that is ok I can show why this hypothesis was rejected.

1st. As alluded to earlier it takes time for a legend to form and there was just not that much time between the crucifixion and the complete gospel message.

1 Corinthians 15 1-9

• Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
  
  3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle because I persecuted the church of God.

• Paul wrote 1 Corinthians around 50 AD. And in this, he tells the Corinthians the message that he received. "That Christ died for our sins that he was buried and that He was raised on the third day. " That is the Gospel message that is still preached today. Nothing else has been added. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians on his 3rd missionary journey. Paul also tells us that he persecuted the Church. All of these facts do not bode well for the legend theory.

• So Paul had to have time to go on 3 missionary journeys and time to persecute the church so which means that Paul received this message of the gospel around 4-7 years after Jesus was crucified.
  
  There had to be a Church for Paul to persecute so that means that this creed was formed right after the crucifixion.

These facts totally blows the legendary hypothesis out of the water. There was no time for any legend to start and there is no indication that anything was added to the message.

And the legendary hypothesis does not answer the question of why Paul would convert to Christianity. Why would a pharisaical scholar be fooled by a legend?

Even if someone argues that Paul is speaking of a spiritual resurrection. Like some on this site have tried to argue. Paul is still not explained. Because Pharisees believed in the spiritual resurrection of the dead, so why would Paul persecute the church for something that he believed?

Why would Paul worship Jesus as God?

Titus 2:13 "Our God and Savior, Jesus." Romans 9:5 "Christ, who is God" and Paul prayed to Jesus 2 Cor. 12:8-10

• Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly in my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest on me. 10 That is why, for the sake of Christ, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.…

Paul was a Pharisee. He was set for life financially because of that. He obviously believed that Jesus was God right after the death of Jesus.

What made Paul and the other disciples believe that Jesus was God?

Paul could believe that Jesus rose spiritually and still remain a Pharaee in good standing.

The Legend Hypothesis still does not answer the most basic facts surrounding the resurrection.

1. The early message of the Gospel. That Jesus died and rose again.
2. The thousands of Jews that accepted this message. Right after Jesus died. That Jesus died and rose again.
3. The reason why Paul persecuted the Church.
4. The reason why Paul became a Christian
5. The reason why Paul and the Church believe Jesus was God

Do you have any theory that will account for those facts? I don't think so.

[Clownboat]

1. The early message of the Gospel. That Jesus died and rose again.
2. The thousands of Jews that accepted this message. Right after Jesus died. That Jesus died and rose again.
3. The reason why Paul persecuted the Church.
4. The reason why Paul became a Christian
5. The reason why Paul and the Church believe Jesus was God

Do you have any theory that will account for those facts? I don't think so.

1. If Jesus rose from the dead, this would be a big deal and we would know more about it then what we get from religious promotional material only.
2. The Jews still reject that Jesus was a Messiah.
3. - 5. Jesus would be rolling in his grave if he knew what Paul did to his message.

Now why would Joseph Smith claim to have received golden plates and magic glasses that gave him the ability to write the Book of Mormon?
Answer me this and you have your own answer.

Humans dupe other humans. You don't believe you have been duped by a religion and you are not alone. All other humans that don't believe they have been duped by a religion are also religious.

However, just because a Mormon can't fathom why Joseph Smith would fraudulently do what he did doesn't justify accepting the claims made by Joseph Smith as true.
The same holds true for your bewilderment. Be bewildered, but don't pretend it means anything or that evidence has been provided.

According to the story, the disciples went to Jesus's homeland after the crucifixion. This would be the logical resting place for Jesus's body and explains why they took the trip and loaded the body with so much spices. Got to cover that smell. This is believable, not the dupe about hundreds of dead bodies walking the streets... or the talking animals, living in a fish, sorcering up fish and loaves, walking on water and on and on.

Your bewilderment only matters to you. For me, you are just religious, doing what I note the religious do.
So why again would Joseph Smith do what he did? How much bewilderment must I present before you start seeing it as evidence?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to brunumb in post #77]

Once again you fail to recognise that not having the answers to those questions does not mean the resurrection actually happened.

The resurrection is the best explanation of these established facts, which your belief system has not answered. That is the problem that you are faced with. How does your belief system answer these facts about what happened in history?

You have claims, not facts.

Can you produce any biblically referenced claimant for cross examination?

Any of their original works for analysis?

[boatsnguitars]

Legends don't take long to start. You have been lied to by you apologetics heroes. They claim it takes decades, and they reference the same unsourced claim, Sherwin-Williams.

Sadly for you, I've reached out to professors on the topic.

Here's what Dr. Bruce Lincoln said, when I asked if 30 years was too short a time for legends to develop:

Dear Mr. Boatsnguitars,

I really have three different responses to the question you raise:

1) No one to my knowledge has tried to establish how long it takes a myth to form. There's a general sense that myths are oft-repeated, traditional, collective narratives, and so there is some inclination to treat them as something that develops slowly and reaches far back into
time, but this is by no means a hard and fast rule. Rather, it repeats the self-representation of much mythic discourse, which is often exaggerated and self-serving.

2) To address the question seriously depends on defining one's terms and deciding how they apply to the case in point. The people with whom you have this dispute would probably be ill-disposed to calling the gospel
narratives a myth, a legend, or anything of the sort. But if it's reasonable to compare the highly embroidered narratives that grew up around George Washington or Napoleon, for example, these were richly elaborated and widely diffused within a decade of their death. I'd have
no difficulty calling them myths or legends, comparable to the gospel records in many ways.

3) Really, I find this a silly dispute. Committed Christians will, of necessity, insist on a special status for the sacred truth of the gospels. To quibble about how long it takes a myth to grow is just a defensive maneuver designed to protect these narratives from being classified as myth. Were this argument shown to be clearly wrong, these
people would just invent another. It's not worth debating with them or taking their objections seriously. You may quote me on that.

all best,
Bruce Lincoln

Note what he says in #3.

So true, you will prove in your next missive.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #83]

So, again, it's obvious you're not serious or a thinker. I wish you well. Hope you get your teddy bear from Santa, or whatever magical man from the sky you believe in

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #77]

Once again you fail to recognise that not having the answers to those questions does not mean the resurrection actually happened.

The resurrection is the best explanation of these established facts, which your belief system has not answered. That is the problem that you are faced with. How does your belief system answer these facts about what happened in history?

The best explanation according to you, but not necessarily the actual explanation. Think of all the allegedly false ideas that spread and got widely accepted. What is your explanation for Islam, Hinduism, $cientology, Mormonism, Ancient Egyptian religious beliefs, and so on (name your own)? As I said, not having the answers to your questions does not mean the resurrection actually happened.

[boatsnguitars]

I'm beginning to see why Lincoln said, "3) Really, I find this a silly dispute. Committed Christians will, of necessity, insist on a special status for the sacred truth of the gospels. To quibble about how long it takes a myth to grow is just a defensive maneuver designed to protect these narratives from being classified as myth. Were this argument shown to be clearly wrong, these people would just invent another. It's not worth debating with them or taking their objections seriously. You may quote me on that."

It's painfully obvious at this point that Lincoln is more of a truth-teller and prophet than Jesus ever was.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to brunumb in post #77]

Once again you fail to recognise that not having the answers to those questions does not mean the resurrection actually happened.

The resurrection is the best explanation of these established facts, which your belief system has not answered. That is the problem that you are faced with. How does your belief system answer these facts about what happened in history?

The best explanation according to you, but not necessarily the actual explanation. Think of all the allegedly false ideas that spread and got widely accepted. What is your explanation for Islam, Hinduism, $cientology, Mormonism, Ancient Egyptian religious beliefs, and so on (name your own)? As I said, not having the answers to your questions does not mean the resurrection actually happened.

Give me a hundred on, "Them others're false, cause the Bible ain't."