Proof Disproving Christianity « Unreasonable Faith Forum

Unreasonable Faith Forum » Only Religion » Questions for Atheists / Theists

Proof Disproving Christianity

(143 posts) (16 voices)

Started 3 years ago by Alejjia
Latest reply from Nox

Tags:

12…5 Next »

Alejjia
Member

The following proof is based on facts that can all be researched by anyone and substantiated by multiple sources including the Christian Bible.

I invite you to research it, pick it apart, support it, hate it, do what you wish. It is up to you.

Proof Which Disproves That Jesus is the Human Incarnation of God:

1. If Jesus is God, he must be accurate regarding events depicted in the Old Testament.*
a. Jesus believes that the Old Testament depicts historically accurate events.
2. There is substantial evidence proving that many events of the Old Testament are historically inaccurate
3. Therefore, Jesus is not God.

Furthermore…

Proof Which Disproves Christianity:

4. If Jesus is not the human incarnation God, Christianity is false.
5. Jesus is not God. (See above proof)
6. Therefore, Christianity is false.

*This relies on the the Christian belief that God has infinite knowledge

Posted 3 years ago #
Elemenope
Moderator

The problem is contention 1a. We have no way of knowing (given, as we must for the argument to be coherent, that Jesus existed at all) what he thought about the historical verity of the Hebrew scriptures.

Posted 3 years ago #
Alejjia
Member

In the New Testament, Jesus references the Old Testament story of Noah and the Ark when speaking with the Corinthians:

"And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise even as it came to pass in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but in the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all: after the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of man is revealed."

Similarly, he discusses the story of Jonah and the Whale:

"Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet: for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here (Matthew 12:38-41)."

Both of these Old Testament passages referenced by Jesus may be analyzed independently.
I have previously concluded that they are not historically accurate through my own research, but invite others to look into it on their own.
The extreme physical improbability of the passages can be a starting point. Most likely, these were originally fables, however in context Jesus treats them as historical events.

Posted 3 years ago #
Jabster
Member

I have pretty much the same problem as Elem, unless you can show good evidence that the Bible is an accurate record (including the intent/context of statements) of Jesus' life then the argument doesn't hold water. It seems that you're using evidence from the Bible as evidence that the Bible is incorrect ...

Posted 3 years ago #
Billie
Member

I agree with Jabster... And also who is this proof for? If its for people who believe in christianity then they probably DO think its all acurate, so this doesn't actually help.
Also, does the bible actually say that jesus is god, or just that he's the son of god? If not, then your whole argument falls through. Everything in a proof has to be undeniably true for it to actually be accurate, and this one just has too many things that could be debated to actually hold any merit. and saying you researched it yourself and we can do the same doesn't mean anything, anyone could say that during any argument. saying that didn't actually back you up it just showed that you didn't have anything to backup your claim.

And then the other proof is just kind of obvious... Its like saying if christ isn't real, christianity isn't real, but that's already basically a known fact no matter what religion you are.

Posted 3 years ago #
Jeremy
Member

In the New Testament, Jesus references the Old Testament story of Noah and the Ark when speaking with the Corinthians:

That was Paul, not Jesus. Yes, the difference is important.

The second example can easily be dismissed as Jesus using a popular and well-known myth to illustrate a point, as he did with so many parables (which nobody, even the fundy, thinks were true stories).

It can be very easily demonstrated that much of the Old Testament is mythology. This is not surprising to anyone except the foaming-at-the-mouth fundy. Even most moderate and/or liberal Christians will acknowledge it. I don't think they'll claim that this "disproves Christianity", because to them "Christianity" doesn't hinge on the literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark story.

Posted 3 years ago #
elizabethdamaro
Member

Actually, Christianity does hinge on the flood as being literal. You don't get to the tribes without it. And Genesis is considered a historical record on lineage.

Posted 3 years ago #
Alejjia
Member

"Christianity does hinge on the flood as being literal."

True. It is not a universal christian belief that the old testament is simply full of nice bedtime stories - many, many christians take this book literally. so i do agree that this makes the proof fall through quite a bit - because i would presume that most people take the bible as a whole as all true, or as all myth. this only really applies to those with enough logic to see the mythological nature of the old testament, while still clinging to the new testament as historical fact - which in my experience seems to be the most common opinion. they often pick and choose when it comes to the old testament - believing what is believable and overlooking that which contradicts reality or is blatantly false.

Posted 3 years ago #
elizabethdamaro
Member

It has very little to do with taking it all literally or all figuratively. It deals with that specific book being counted as a historical record of lineage. Metaphors are also used in that book, but when it comes to lines of tribes, it is historic in its application.

The idea that any text must be at either extreme is nonsense. A person can describe the events of this morning by stating the sun rose.

Take a minute and think about that. Since, the sun isn't "rising" at all.

Posted 3 years ago #
Alejjia
Member

I full agree with you. But it is not too much to state that as opinions of people, these extremes do exist, and although it is frightening that people can overlook facts in order to support these extreme views, it is still an occurrence. However, as I have stated in my reply to your post from yesterday, this proof is more so geared towards what I perceive as the "common christian" - one who believes in the complete historical accuracy of the New Testament, while picking and choosing what to believe from the Old. And this proof does not claim the complete falseness of the Old Testement - it simply denies the complete truthfulness, i.e. historical accuracy, of it. Complete truth is necessary for something to be truly historically accurate, and that is what I claim - for these purposes alone - that the Old Testament lacks, and I make the presumption that the general population can at least agree to this. I am not talking to the extremes, I am in fact talking to the median of the christian population.

Posted 3 years ago #
Huxley
Member

I dont usually have a problem with the actual existence of Jesus. Its a common enough name and there might as well have been a Jesus going around pissing everyone off. As an ordinary person He is trivial; its the woo woo that His followers drool over.

Posted 3 years ago #
Alejjia
Member

Oh, guess what I found!

Article: "75% in Arkansas, Alabama Believe Bible Literally True"
"
note the following section: "Earlier this summer, a national survey found that 54% of American adults believe the Bible is literally true."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2006/75_in_arkansas_alabama_believe_bible_literally_true

Just sayin.

Posted 3 years ago #
elizabethdamaro
Member

Alejjia: For someone who doesn't know what the word hermeneutic means, listening to you claim what "christians" think is laughable.

And don't attempt to post stats that you also haven't researched fully.

99% of what you say is ignorant.

See what I mean.

"Complete truth is necessary for something to be truly historically accurate, and that is what I claim"

And that claim ignores the basic idea of information and memory.

Get a better education.

Posted 3 years ago #
Elemenope
Moderator

Get a better education.

She stated at the start that she was looking to educate herself more by starting conversations and testing ideas. If she isn't advanced enough for you or something, then by all means refrain from commenting, but belittling her ideas or the status of her knowledge on the subject is not necessary.

Posted 3 years ago #
elizabethdamaro
Member

Maybe your reading comprehension is off, but she also stated she wanted strong reactions.

You want to babysit and not take her on her words about her own strengths? Or you just want to moderate me for giggles and sound silly doing it?

Posted 3 years ago #
Elemenope
Moderator

I imagine she meant strong reactions to her ideas, not insults.

Posted 3 years ago #
elizabethdamaro
Member

insult is subjective. and it is hardly insulting to tell someone to get more educated on a topic. including telling them to learn a proper interpretive.

chill el.

Posted 3 years ago #
Nox
Member

Here's the thing Alejjia,

I do think you have something here. But what you have is not a proof. It is more like a cherry that you could put on top of another proof to reinforce its impact. The problem is that so many people do consider the bible to be literally true. While you are most likely correct that the story of Jonah is false, it can't be taken as an already established point when arguing with someone who believes the bible is literally true. I imagine that most innerrantists would respond, "But the bible is true, so the Jonah story is true, so Jesus was right to say it was true". Saying that the sheer stupidity of the bible proves it false would be a true statement but a weak argument. If this is intended to convince christians then you will first have to establish the inaccuracy of the Jonah story. If they believe Jonah to be true, and your argument requires it to be false you will not get far without clearing this hurdle. The other thing is, if the bible is not literally true, then how can we possibly know that Jesus said what the bible quotes him as saying (about Jonah or the son of god thing)? If Jonah is false or metaphorical then why could the gospels not be the same way? This leaves the possibility that Jesus' quote about Jonah was made up by the gospel authors which if true would mean he did not make this particular mistake. And if Jesus never actually claimed to be god, then mistakenly quoting Jonah as a true story would only contradict those later sources who called Jesus infallible.

Like I said, I would not completely abandon this, but it will not be of any use until you establish that if Jesus did believe in the literal truth of the old testament then he would be wrong. There are quite a few ways to establish this point. My favorite (and I think the most efficient one) is the 'proof' that I posted in the beginning of the thread titled "Can't disprove god?".

http://unreasonablefaith.com/forum/topic/cant-disprove-god

Admittedly there are some biblical literalists who will claim that Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally, but most of them do take it literally, and this particular proof absolutely destroys the possibility that the creation story is literally true. And speaking of that, the site you linked to also contains a poll which reflects numbers outside of Arkansas (I would have expected higher than 75% in that one state).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/53_of_churchgoers_say_attendance_is_growing

"Fifty-four percent (54%) of all Americans believe the Bible is literally true while 32% disagree and 13% are not sure. Among those who attend Church at least once a week, 74% believe it is literally true. At the other extreme, 29% of those who rarely or never attend Church believe the Bible is literally true. Among Evangelical Christians, 85% believe the Bible is literally true. That numbers falls to 55% among other Protestants and 53% among Catholics."

54% nationwide is actually a scarier number than 75% in Arkansas.

Posted 3 years ago #
elizabethdamaro
Member

The polls are poor evidence for any statement, as they reflect opinions on loaded questions and statements.

Define: literal.

Posted 3 years ago #
Jabster
Member

""Fifty-four percent (54%) of all Americans believe the Bible is literally true"

I've got to say that seems high but assuming the poll data wasn't self-selecting then it's presuamble in the right ball park. The question I have is how many of those 54% actually know what the Bible really says that they can even claim if it's true or not?

Posted 3 years ago #
Nox
Member

Literal in this context would mean that the events reported happened the way they were reported. As opposed to the view that the bible could be reporting events which never happened or happened in some vastly different way from how they are described. A non-literal view could still have room for believing the bible is poetic truth or philosophical truth, even if one believes that the earth is not literally flat. While I would call many parts of the bible literally false there are bits from Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Sermon on the Mount which I would call truth in some sense of the word.

Posted 3 years ago #
Nox
Member

"how many of those 54% actually know what the Bible really says that they can even claim if it's true or not?"

Good point. Most people who believe in the literal truth of the bible have never read it and have no idea what 'truths' they are subscribing to. The pollster might have gotten a lower number if they had asked, "Do you believe that the Earth is a flat disk with a dome over it, that said dome contains every star in the Universe, that snakes and donkeys talk, that every species on Earth could fit in a 450'x75'x45' boat, that dragons, satyrs, four headed leopards, and unicorns are real creatures, that the sun was literally contained inside a small valley in the middle east, that Jerusalem was overrun with zombies 3 days after Jesus died, that fruit gives you knowledge of good and evil and bread is the body of a dead jew?" It is easier to subscribe to a literal view of the bible if you have no idea what the bible says.

Posted 3 years ago #
Elemenope
Moderator

They believe that they believe the Bible is literally true. A certain subset of them believe that the Bible is literally true. It would be interesting to know the differential between those two groups.

Posted 3 years ago #
elizabethdamaro
Member

Nox: based on some of your statements, I'm guessing you might not have too much knowledge of what it says either.

Again, a person can make a statement that incorporates a variety of literary devices. Expecting it to be all or none is an extreme that makes no sense.

Posted 3 years ago #
Nox
Member

Obviously you missed the point I was trying to make, perhaps try reading it with a less "all or none" view. I'm aware that the bible contains a lot of literary hyperbole, and I realize that Genesis is meant as an allegorical origin of the Jews, and not a literal origin of mankind. The point I was trying to make is that people who believe in the bible generally do not see it as that. There are a lot more people like this than you might think. They may not show up so much on this board, but try going down to your local megachurch and asking the attendees if they think it is meant to be read literally.

Posted 3 years ago #
elizabethdamaro
Member

Nox: Don't pretend you know what I do or don't know about some belief systems out there.

Some of your examples simply showed that your understanding of this text is also very limited.

Posted 3 years ago #
Nox
Member

Okay, I'll play along, what is it that you know? And which statements are you referring to? Cause everything I mentioned in that earlier post is something that is described as an actual thing in the text.

Posted 3 years ago #
elizabethdamaro
Member

You want to do a bible study? Sure.

Show me where it states it is the fruit that gives the knowledge of good and evil. Last I checked it was eating of the tree that did that.

Also show me where zombies are referenced.

And where the text claims the bread is literally the body of a dead jew.

Don't mistake doctrines for the actual literary devices in the text.

We'll start with those three.

Posted 3 years ago #
Nox
Member

Genesis 3:2-5
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.
5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Matthew 27:50-53
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

John 6:50-52
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Knowledge fruit, zombies, and biblical backup for the doctrine of transubstantiation, as you requested.

And I think you still don't get what I was actually saying. It's not that I don't understand there are metaphorical passages in the bible. What I was saying is that is not how most christians read the bible. And aside from a few passages which are introduced "and Jesus told them a parable", there is nothing overtly in the text of the bible which states that certain parts are not meant to be taken as historical fact. Remember, the scripture that Copernicus got in trouble for contradicting was a Psalm (as in hymn or poem).

So again, let me clarify. I'm not stating that I don't know the bible is not all meant to be taken literally. I'm stating that the majority of christians do think it is meant to be taken literally.

Posted 3 years ago #
elizabethdamaro
Member

Genesis doesn't make the claim you stated. Again, it is pretty clear even just reading what you wrote that it was the disobedience that did it, not the fruit.

Matthew isn't addressing zombies at all.

And John is referencing passover - do you know anything about the seder? The bread broken was a reference to that.

And you think others read things too literally? This is why methods of interpretation matter.

And your "majority" of Christians is suspect as well. What you ought to be saying is that people who don't know how to apply basic reading comprehension screw up knowing what they read about. That goes for a lot of folks, christians are no exception.

Again, as shown by your attempt to cite passages completely ripped from the author's intent.

Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12…5 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

A Reasonable Forum on Religion, Science, Skepticism, and Atheism

Proof Disproving Christianity

Reply »