God created Christinity?

[Willum]

There are a number of people who claim the God created Christianity to save the merest fraction of humanity... Yet I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that supports this... Does anyone have anything?

The question for the debate: What are people thinking when they claim God created Christianity? What led them to believe this?


Answer: I don't think anyone who honestly takes the subject seriously, and has studied the evidence, would claim such a thing.

It is kind of crazy... You would think that any obvious truth should spread throughout society, like a wildfire. But it seems to be, that Christianity, and the obvious facts, seem to be suppressed by the masses, and misconceptions are asserted and supported by people even though they are obviously false... One of those misconceptions is God created Christianity...

Does anyone have any evidence?

(And note, the compiling of the Bible is not creating Christianity, but that should be obvious for anyone who takes this subject seriously and has studied the evidence)

[Tart]

Clearly your "superstition, rumors, and myths" explanation is not a valid explanation at all.. You have to conclude something more, like the Disciples lied, or something like that... Is that what you think happened? And do you have any evdience for soemthing like that?

Humans are known to tell lies. So why should you think that it's impossible that the authors of these ancient stories couldn't tell lies?

And why would I need evidence that people lied? We know that people lie all the time. Nothing surprising there.

If you want to claim that the Gospels represent some sort of truth, then it's up to you to provide evidence for that.

And I already showed you where that leads. It leads to a lifetime of making up endless feeble apologies for why you think the Gospels could have been telling some sort of true. Apologies that you can't even convince fellow Christians of.

So that approach certainly isn't going anywhere constructive.

Ok, so you dont believe that Christianity is based on rumors, myths, and superstition? You now believe the Disciples lied about Jesus?

Sure, anyone can tell a lie. The problem is, there is no good evidence of the Disciples lying...

See the disciples arent just telling us a story, no they are explaining to us Christianity. They are giving us the reasons Jesus is a savior, the explanation of why he fulfilled the law, they show us the evidence in the prophecies. They conclusively witness to us that this is, and has always been the destiny of an All Powerful and All knowing God. They clearly explain to us that it isnt them creating this explanation, but it is them witnessing to us that God demonstrated His destiny through the evidence they witnessed.

They give us the reasons they believe in Jesus as their savior. They demonstrate the spirit working and changing them, like Paul/Saul.. And they died for their beliefs... They were killed for not denouncing any of these things...

Ya... Saying they lied, would be a far stretch based on the evidence we have, and especially if this hypothesis (that they lied) was based on my suggestion to you that you need a better explanation then your "myth, rumor, and superstition" explanation, and held out it as a carrot for you....

lol... I mean, what evidence lead you to believe the Disciples lied? Nothing but my suggestion? How would you negate the evidence i just spoke of, down to lies about events that never happened?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 20 by ttruscott]

1. The Bible, it has been mentioned provides nothing but paper, ink and imagination. It has no substance.
2. Witness of a billion people who saw nothing.
3. The in dwelling of a sensation indistinguishable from an imaginary friend.
4. N/C

So, no evidence, huh?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 21 by Tart]

How quaint, unable to address the topic, you try to change it into your own. Sorry, this topic is about showing evidence of God in Christianity. Not others providing evidence confounding preposterous stances.

I think we have firmly established there is no evidence God created Christianity, and certainly nothing Christians agree on.

So if it wasn't God, then who?
Satan?
Aliens?
The Easter Bunny Consortium? (EBC)
The BBC?
Maybe the Romans.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 21 by Tart]

How quaint, unable to address the topic, you try to change it into your own. Sorry, this topic is about showing evidence of God in Christianity. Not others providing evidence confounding preposterous stances.

I think we have firmly established there is no evidence God created Christianity, and certainly nothing Christians agree on.

So if it wasn't God, then who?
Satan?
Aliens?
The Easter Bunny Consortium? (EBC)
The BBC?
Maybe the Romans.

The most logical conclusion to me is:
"The very same mechanism that invented all the other religions of this world". Humans.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Tart]

[Replying to post 21 by Tart]

How quaint, unable to address the topic, you try to change it into your own. Sorry, this topic is about showing evidence of God in Christianity. Not others providing evidence confounding preposterous stances.

I think we have firmly established there is no evidence God created Christianity, and certainly nothing Christians agree on.

So if it wasn't God, then who?
Satan?
Aliens?
The Easter Bunny Consortium? (EBC)
The BBC?
Maybe the Romans.

The most logical conclusion to me is:
"The very same mechanism that invented all the other religions of this world". Humans.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Well if any of you would like to provide an actual reasonable answer for Christianity coming into existence, i would invite you to do so... So far it looks like everything suggested, is speculation...

We know why Christianity exists, it is God revealing Himself to the world. The fact that humans create gods is actual evidence in favor of Christianity. Because humans are in a unique position of relating to God, being made in Gods image. We have a drive in us, to be like and seek to find god. This is why humans make religions, and its why humans rule over the earth... In fact, the quality of ruling over the earth, has historically been attributed to being like god. The Egyptians believed the Pharaohs were like Gods. The Greeks suggested that their reasoning and logical thinking, started with God. The Romans, likewise ruled as if they were gods... And then Christ came and filled the seat, warning us of false prophets. It is consistent with Christianity.

The scripture shows us why Christianity exists. Jesus came and fulfilled the prophets Messiah. He completed the Destiny of Judaism, fulfilling the law. Jesus showed many great signs, as witnessed by the Disciples, and was killed in accordance for the forgiveness of sin, and was then resurrected... And the witnesses firmly believed in these things and died for not denouncing them. The puzzle fits, the picture is complete, the cornerstone of the temple is in place, the best explanation is the one given... I have yet to see anyone make sense out the entirety of the evidence, from a position of god doesnt exist... All we see is people throwing mud in the water, at various points... They will take one prophecy and say "this isnt true because it hasnt been fulfilled yet", and another saying "this isnt true because it could have been fulfilled before it was written", another one saying "this one is too broad", and yet another saying "this is just self fulfilling"... They take the witnesses and say "Paul must have hallucinated Jesus Resurrection", and then say "the resurrection is totally myth", and then say "perhaps there were 2 Jesus's", while saying "Jesus never existed".


You guys dont make sense.. I am simply asking for a reasonable coherent answer that makes sense... Do you have one?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 25 by Tart]

Yeah, what 'clownbot' said - people made it up. What don't you get?
All evidence points to people.

Nothing points to God.

[bluethread]

Sorry, but Zechariah 11 includes the reference to Judas Iscariot as it is quoted in Matthew 27:9-10, and Zechariah 11:8 stipulates that all 3 shepherds, including Cords/Peter and Favor/Paul, would be annihilated in the same month/generation. As for the "house of Israel" it remains scattered among the nations (Ezekiel 36:21-24), and until after the "bones" of the "whole house of Israel" rise from the dead, the "house of Israel" and "Judah" won't be as one nation, on the lands I gave to Jacob, with "My servant David" as "king over them", when "they will walk in My ordinances" (Ezekiel 37). No, the stick of Judah and the stick of Ephraim/Israel remains apart until the "awesome day of the LORD" (Joel 2:31) when Jerusalem is "captured" and the LORD goes out to fight (Zechariah 14)

This is all based on proof text hermeneutics. First, Matthew refers to Jeremiah not Zechariah. Now, it is not uncommon for the Major Prophets; Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel to be used as idioms for all of the prophets. This type of loose reference is also used by Matthew with the term "fulfilled". It does not mean that the passage was specifically speaking about the event Matthew is mentioning, but the principle is being fully illustrated. In that case, the principle of betrayal. Chapter 9 and the beginning of this chapter indicate who the three shepherds are. They are the kings of Ephraim(Israel) and Yerusalem(Yehudah), and the king of Lebanon who they trusted to defend them.

The rest of your post is just more of the same proof text theology that is eisegesis, interpreting based on ones preferred doctrine, rather than exegesis, that interprets a passage based on history, grammar and culture.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 20 by ttruscott]

1. The Bible, it has been mentioned provides nothing but paper, ink and imagination. It has no substance.
2. Witness of a billion people who saw nothing.
3. The in dwelling of a sensation indistinguishable from an imaginary friend.
4. N/C

So, no evidence, huh?

Evidence I accept over the other possibilities you present but it seems that if you do not accept them then there is nothing. Oh well, par for this course...paper and ink over ideas and spirit. What makes you think I should follow you because you tell my story badly to discredit it for my experience?