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?

[brunumb]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #90]

Mark Twain once said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.”

How and why can be due to any number of factors. The growth of Christianity is not testament to the truth of the resurrection.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #90]

Mark Twain once said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.”

How and why can be due to any number of factors. The growth of Christianity is not testament to the truth of the resurrection.

We have all, literally, been witness to new religions forming in our life times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... _movements

There really is no question to why religions form and take hold. It's what humans do. It would be remarkable if there weren't religions.

For Christians to say, "How do you explain the growth of Christianity?" seems to indicate they haven't read a book - any book. Hell, even the Bible talks about other religions. How did they form and grow - according to Christians? (I know, they'll just say "sin" and not really wonder about the psychology of whole thing. Curiosity kills the Christains chance for eternal life....)

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #84]

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.

It was a big deal. Christianity rose very quickly. Again within 30 years, there were enough Christians even in Rome to blame them for the fire that destroyed Rome.

The disciples were Jews, Paul was a Jew and many other Jews did believe. So many Jews were turning to Christianity that Paul started to persecute them so that the movement would not spread anymore.

It was not Paul's message. If it was Paul's message why would he persecute the church for the message that he wanted to spread?

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.

Why don't you throw Muhammad in there also? He received the koran the same way.

Who said Joseph Smith was fraudulent? Or who said what Muhammad saw was fraudulent? The question is not whether they saw and experienced what they saw and experienced but what was the message that they received. The message that they received is different than what the Bible declares so that makes Mormonism and Islam a different religion based on a different God.

As far as people being duped, that is what I am asking how were they duped? Who could have duped them? It could not have been Paul's story because Paul persecuted the Church.

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.

So are you saying that the disciples started the story? Why would Paul believe a bunch of fishermen's stories?

[Clownboat]

It was a big deal. Christianity rose very quickly. Again within 30 years, there were enough Christians even in Rome to blame them for the fire that destroyed Rome.

It wasn't a big enough deal to be written down anywhere except in religious promotional material, or it didn't happen as claimed of course.
Hundreds of dead bodies walking the streets of Jerusalem and we hear nothing about it outside of religious promotional material, or again, it didn't happen as claimed.

The disciples were Jews, Paul was a Jew and many other Jews did believe. So many Jews were turning to Christianity that Paul started to persecute them so that the movement would not spread anymore.

Did you read about this in religious promotional material?

It was not Paul's message. If it was Paul's message why would he persecute the church for the message that he wanted to spread?

The Christianity we have today is very much Paul's as Jesus wrote none of it himself. Did Paul persecute the church? Did he now?

Why don't you throw Muhammad in there also? He received the koran the same way.

I did.
Copy/paste: "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."

I note that you refused to ask yourself why Joseph Smith made his claims about the magic glasses and golden plates. It has got to be uncomfortable I suppose.

Who said Joseph Smith was fraudulent? Or who said what Muhammad saw was fraudulent?

You do for one. What an odd question!

The question is not whether they saw and experienced what they saw and experienced but what was the message that they received. The message that they received is different than what the Bible declares so that makes Mormonism and Islam a different religion based on a different God.

I'm discussing the mechanism for why we have religions. Please don't expect me to take their messages seriously.
Again, it seems that Mormons have been duped by the Mormon religion and therefore are Mormon. It seems that Muslims have been duped by their religion and therefore they are Muslim. Christians aren't special now are they? If not, I would assume they are Christian for the very same reason that a Muslim is a Muslim.

As far as people being duped, that is what I am asking how were they duped? Who could have duped them?

Remember when you didn't want to address why Joseph Smith did what he did. It's relevant again!

It could not have been Paul's story because Paul persecuted the Church.

Many believe that Paul wrote up to 13 books in the New Testament. It very much is his story and is very different when compared to things that Jesus is claimed to have said. Consider this, you believe the writings of Paul, so why would you not believe he persecuted Christians when he writes about it?

So are you saying that the disciples started the story? Why would Paul believe a bunch of fishermen's stories?

No, I said the disciples went to the logical burial place for Jesus's body after the crucifixion according to the story. Why again would Joseph Smith claim to have found golden plates and magic glasses?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #0]

I do not know who this Dr. Bruce Lincoln is or what he believes. If he wants to try to discuss this with me he is more than welcome. Because his answer shows that he really cannot answer this problem either.

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.

As already stated the Christian message of Jesus dying on the cross, of being raised from the dead and being God, has been the consistent message of Christianity since its conception. Jesus was believed to be God because of his resurrection.

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.

Wasn't quite sure what this guy was talking about here so I looked some up. We will start with Napoleon because there are a couple of legends about Napoleon not dying.

Napoleon died in 1821.
In 1911, 90 years after Napoleon died on the island of St. Helena. https://shannonselin.com/2017/09/10-myt ... bonaparte/

• The myth that Napoleon was replaced by a double named François-Eugène Robeaud first appeared in print in 1911, “supposedly derived from the memoirs of a police agent named Ledru (purportedly published in Liège in 1840 but not to be found in any library today).” (5) Robeaud, allegedly impoverished and living in the French village of Baleycourt, was said to have disappeared sometime in 1818 after reportedly being visited by General Gaspard Gourgaud, one of Napoleon’s former companions on St. Helena. There is no evidence that Robeaud ever existed, or that he replaced Napoleon. And, though my novel Napoleon in America is based on Napoleon escaping from St. Helena, there is no evidence that Napoleon ever left the island. See “Could Napoleon have escaped from St. Helena?”

• The substitution myth, first advanced by French photographer and journalist Georges de Rétif de la Bretonne in 1969, claims that the British government secretly removed Napoleon’s body from St. Helena in 1828 and substituted the corpse of his Corsican maître d’hôtel, Jean-Baptiste Cipriani Franceschi, who died on the island in February 1818. The alleged British motive? To conceal that Napoleon had died of arsenic poisoning, in case the body was ever exhumed. The theory rests on alleged discrepancies between the state of Napoleon’s body and caskets in 1821, and how they appeared when his body was disinterred for transportation to France in 1840. The fact that Cipriani’s grave has never been found is also presented as evidence, as are differences between Napoleon’s death masks. However, numerous people who were present at Napoleon’s original burial confirmed that it was still him in the tomb in 1840. See “What Happened to Napoleon’s body?”

or there is always this one.

• In 1927, an object described as a “mummified tendon taken from Napoleon’s body during the post-mortem” was displayed at the Museum of French Art in New York. The “tendon,” purported to be Napoleon’s penis, was allegedly cut off by Napoleon’s physician Dr. François Antommarchi during Napolon’s autopsy and given to the Corsican priest, Ange-Paul Vignali. After Vignali’s death, it was passed down through his family and eventually sold to various collectors, until acquired in 1977 by American urologist John K. Lattimer. Upon Lattimer’s death, his son inherited the object. A 1924 catalogue claimed:
  
  The authenticity of this remarkable relic has lately been confirmed by the publication in the Revue des Deux Mondes of a posthumous memoir by St. Denis, in which he expressly states that he and Vignali took away small pieces of Napoleon’s corpse during the autopsy. (7)
  
  What the memoir by Napoleon’s valet Louis Étienne Saint-Denis actually says is that Vignali was given a little piece from Napoleon’s rib. (8) Nowhere does Saint-Denis, or any of the 16 other people present at the autopsy, say that Napoleon’s penis was removed. It is hard to believe that such a significant part of Napoleon’s anatomy could have been cut off without anyone noticing and eventually saying something about it.

All of these are well after the death of Napoleon.

And I am not sure what he is talking about regarding George Washington myths.
The cutting down the Cherry Tree myth

Do you or this Dr. Bruce Lincoln have an example of a legend that did not take long to form? By definition, a legend has to be history, "a story coming down from the past"

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.

This is nothing more than an appeal to stone. There are still entire books written on both sides of this argument. So this means either he already knows that he has no defense for his position or he really does not understand the argument. And you can quote me on that.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #93]

This is of course one of the 'Success proves Christianity' apologetics

The disciples would not die for a lie
(various Paul apologetics)
Christianity spread quickly.

The argument being that The disciples/Apostles declared Jesus' teachings and the fact of resurrection or why would they be persecuted and still keep preaching? To the fact that it took hold in Rome 20 - odd years after the crucifixion.

The Link being the idea that Paul was originally persecuting Christians before 36/7 when he had converted and had to flee Damascus. And of course that would be his 'belated' vision of the resurrected Jesus with the others of I Corinthians having happened between the Actual resurrection and the five hundred seeing Jesus and finally James (the Less, brother of Jesus and head of the Nazorene church) , who I thought as one of the twelve had seen Jesus arisen Sunday evening seeing the resurrected Jesus.

Something a bit odd is going on, even before we get to Acts showing the disciples (including James, no Less) as observing Jews and yet the Jews of the 'circumcision' being a different group at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) where Peter and James and (presumably) their side of the Jewish Christians supported Paul and his non circumsized church. Odd, even without the Gospels telling us that Jesus had pretty much taught his followers that Jewish law didn't matter, and Paul writing that this was a private talk with James, not a full trial as Acts shows it.

On top of that with Paul writing to the Romans explaining that the Law didn't matter and only Jesus did, and one has to ask, just who were these 'Christians' that already existed in Rome, but needed to be taught the Christian basics?

Without going into a long post, call these people observing Jews who respected the laws of Moses but also believed that Jesus had been the Messiah and would come again in their lifetimes, and this makes more sense than these Romans, Jews 'of the circumcision' and indeed Jesus' initial disciples were Gentile -type Christians, but were messianic Jews and in fact the enemies of Rome, which is how Rome treated them.

And aside that few Bible critics, experts or Authorities espouse such views (though they are starting to catch on) the Believers won't but it for a second, but that doesn't matter because i do, and it is not only good enough reason not to to be persuaded by this disciples to Christian Rome - apologetic, but my hypothetical explanation fits the facts and explains the puzzles and questions better than the Christian apologetic does.

Just saying, friends, True Believers will dismiss me but those with doubts..just give it a listen. It may work better than any Christian apologetics Explanation ever did.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #91]

Mark Twain once said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.”

So why did the truth not catch up?

How and why can be due to any number of factors. The growth of Christianity is not a testament to the truth of the resurrection.

Yes, that is the question. Like what?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to brunumb in post #91]

Mark Twain once said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.”

So why did the truth not catch up?

How and why can be due to any number of factors. The growth of Christianity is not a testament to the truth of the resurrection.

Yes, that is the question. Like what?

Because a lie is quicker to say and easier to remember than the refutation.

Atheist axiom "It is far quicker and easier to say 'There are fairies at the bottom of my garden' than to explain why there probably aren't"

This is even without people finding newly minted lies more profitable than well established truths where the Royalties go to those who already published. Some decades ago my best pal argued doubts about evolution, using a book on butterflies where the author argued against speciation. I can't quite recall it but over many years of discussion I think he now gets why the 'Macro -Micro' argument is invalid. Not that i want to derail into an evolution -debate but it shows how easy it is to say 'Jesus has risen!' than to go through all the arguments and explain why he probably hasn't.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #0]

It wasn't a big enough deal to be written down anywhere except in religious promotional material, or it didn't happen as claimed of course.
Hundreds of dead bodies walking the streets of Jerusalem and we hear nothing about it outside of religious promotional material, or again, it didn't happen as claimed.

What era do you think they lived in? Why do you think thousands of Jews believed not just that Jesus was raised from the dead but God? Who are you saying would write something about it that would have been retained for centuries? The only writings of that time were from historians and they were not in Jerusalem and they did mention Jesus so it was a big deal.

The disciples were Jews, Paul was a Jew and many other Jews did believe. So many Jews were turning to Christianity that Paul started to persecute them so that the movement would not spread anymore.

Did you read about this in religious promotional material?

Are you saying the disciples were not Jews? What data do you have that supports that? Why did Paul persecute the Church? Are you trying to say that the church was not mainly Jewish in Jerusalem? What data do you have that supports that?

The Christianity we have today is very much Paul's as Jesus wrote none of it himself. Did Paul persecute the church? Did he now?

So many assertions and no data. Paul said that he persecuted the Church in 4 of his letters.

What are you trying to communicate by this statement? That the persecution of the church never happened? When are you saying the persecution of the church started if not in the first century?

I note that you refused to ask yourself why Joseph Smith made his claims about the magic glasses and golden plates. It has got to be uncomfortable I suppose.

Who said Joseph Smith was fraudulent? Or who said what Muhammad saw was fraudulent?

You do for one. What an odd question!

Why would I question Joseph Smith or Muhammad? I was not there. I do not know what they saw and experienced. The only thing I can do is compare their message from wherever to the Bible and see if it is true.

I'm discussing the mechanism for why we have religions. Please don't expect me to take their messages seriously.
Again, it seems that Mormons have been duped by the Mormon religion and therefore are Mormon. It seems that Muslims have been duped by their religion and therefore they are Muslim. Christians aren't special now are they? If not, I would assume they are Christian for the very same reason that a Muslim is a Muslim.

You cannot say whether or not the Mormons or the Muslims were duped or not. You were not there when Joseph Smith or Muhammad said they saw their vision. But if you are talking about the mechanism the revelation for Bible was not the same as Mormonism and Islam. Besides Revelations which is a prediction of future events, the Bible was not written by dictation from a being like in Mormonism and Islam.

Remember when you didn't want to address why Joseph Smith did what he did. It's relevant again!

Ok, I will remember Oh Dear.

Many believe that Paul wrote up to 13 books in the New Testament. It very much is his story and is very different when compared to things that Jesus is claimed to have said. Consider this, you believe the writings of Paul, so why would you not believe he persecuted Christians when he writes about it?

I said "It was not Paul's message. If it was Paul's message why would he persecute the church for the message that he wanted to spread?"

But let me put it like this. It was not Paul's gospel message, because Paul persecuted the church, because of that message.

Why again would Joseph Smith claim to have found golden plates and magic glasses?

Maybe he did, I do not know I was not there. I do know the message that he wrote down and the events that happened around him.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #96]

To tell you the truth I have no idea what your argument is.

Something a bit odd is going on, even before we get to Acts showing the disciples (including James, no Less) as observing Jews and yet the Jews of the 'circumcision' being a different group at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) where Peter and James and (presumably) their side of the Jewish Christians supported Paul and his non circumsized church. Odd, even without the Gospels telling us that Jesus had pretty much taught his followers that Jewish law didn't matter, and Paul writing that this was a private talk with James, not a full trial as Acts shows it.

Far from saying that the law met nothing.
Paul says that the law is how we know we are sinners

The sermon on the Mt. in Matthew 5,6, and 7 Jesus actually expands the Jewish law to the thought life and not just action.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

On top of that with Paul writing to the Romans explaining that the Law didn't matter and only Jesus did, and one has to ask, just who were these 'Christians' that already existed in Rome, but needed to be taught the Christian basics?

Paul was teaching Romans for the same reason that a pastor gets up every week or multiple times a week and explains Scripture to his congregation. Paul understood that humans are hard-headed and things need to be repeated.

Without going into a long post, call these people observing Jews who respected the laws of Moses but also believed that Jesus had been the Messiah and would come again in their lifetimes, and this makes more sense than these Romans, Jews 'of the circumcision' and indeed Jesus' initial disciples were Gentile -type Christians, but were messianic Jews and in fact the enemies of Rome, which is how Rome treated them.

Again I really have no idea what you are talking about here. Because all Jews believed a messiah was coming and restoring the nation of Isreal. that was part of the belief system of the Jews.

And aside that few Bible critics, experts or Authorities espouse such views (though they are starting to catch on) the Believers won't but it for a second, but that doesn't matter because i do, and it is not only good enough reason not to to be persuaded by this disciples to Christian Rome - apologetic, but my hypothetical explanation fits the facts and explains the puzzles and questions better than the Christian apologetic does.

Ok, another appeal to stone. Cool.